Assessing significant probative value for the purposes of admitting coincidence evidence: DSJ v R; NS v R

Nicholas Lennings

doi:10.1350/ijep.2013.17.2.426

Assessing significant probative value for the purposes of admitting coincidence evidence: DSJ v R; NS v R

Nicholas Lennings

Macquarie Law School

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	202-213
Number of pages	12
Journal	International journal of evidence and proof
Volume	17
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2013.17.2.426
Publication status	Published - 2013

Keywords

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

Access to Document

10.1350/ijep.2013.17.2.426

Cite this

@article{84724329c3394121a7455d15409b2557,

title = "Assessing significant probative value for the purposes of admitting coincidence evidence: DSJ v R; NS v R",

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.",

keywords = "Uniform Evidence Law, Coincidence evidence, Significant probative value, Role of trial judge and fact-finder, Alternative inferences",

author = "Nicholas Lennings",

year = "2013",

doi = "10.1350/ijep.2013.17.2.426",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

pages = "202--213",

journal = "International journal of evidence and proof",

issn = "1740-5572",

publisher = "Vathek Publishing",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing significant probative value for the purposes of admitting coincidence evidence

T2 - DSJ v R; NS v R

AU - Lennings, Nicholas

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Uniform Evidence Law

KW - Coincidence evidence

KW - Significant probative value

KW - Role of trial judge and fact-finder

KW - Alternative inferences

U2 - 10.1350/ijep.2013.17.2.426

DO - 10.1350/ijep.2013.17.2.426

M3 - Article

SN - 1740-5572

VL - 17

SP - 202

EP - 213

JO - International journal of evidence and proof

JF - International journal of evidence and proof

IS - 2

ER -

Assessing significant probative value for the purposes of admitting coincidence evidence: DSJ v R; NS v R

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this