R v Curtis [2016] NSWSC 660

R v Curtis [2016] NSWSC 660

The evidence of 45 matching trades is not admissible to prove the existence of the unlawful agreement alleged in the indictment by improbability (coincidence) reasoning under s 98 and s 101 of the Evidence Act, as its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value for that purpose. However, it remains admissible as circumstantial evidence of overt acts and some states of mind by ordinary inference, not coincidence reasoning.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence
Outcome
Application granted in part; ruling constrains use of coincidence evidence to overt acts and certain states of mind, not to prove existence of the unlawful agreement by coincidence reasoning.
Legal Topics
['coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'insider Trading' 'conspiracy']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'insider Trading' 'conspiracy']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed coincidence evidence is admissible to prove acts and states of mind specified in the coincidence notice' 'Whether improbability reasoning is permissible to prove an unlawful agreement based on similarities in trades' 'Assessment of the prejudicial effect versus probative value under s 101 of the Evidence Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of 45 matching trades is not admissible to prove the existence of the unlawful agreement alleged in the indictment by improbability (coincidence) reasoning under s 98 and s 101 of the Evidence Act, as its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value for that purpose. However, it remains admissible as circumstantial evidence of overt acts and some states of mind by ordinary inference, not coincidence reasoning.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; ruling constrains use of coincidence evidence to overt acts and certain states of mind, not to prove existence of the unlawful agreement by coincidence reasoning.

Orders

  • ['Evidence of matching trades not to be used to prove the unlawful agreement alleged via improbability reasoning under s 98 and s 101 of the Evidence Act.']