Assessing significant probative value for the purposes of admitting coincidence evidence

DSJ v R; NS v R

Nicholas Lennings

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The article focuses on the Australian Uniform Evidence Law (UEL), a coincidence rule for the assessment of probative values. It mentions that UEL reflects the relevance of evidence at common law which is regarded as its probative value as defined under section 98 of the Evidence Act 1995. It discusses the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) cases DSJ v. R and NS v. R, in which appellate decisions were made relating to the purpose of coincidence evidence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)202-213
Number of pages12
JournalInternational journal of evidence and proof
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Keywords

  • Uniform Evidence Law
  • Coincidence evidence
  • Significant probative value
  • Role of trial judge and fact-finder
  • Alternative inferences

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing significant probative value for the purposes of admitting coincidence evidence: DSJ v R; NS v R'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this