R v Bruce GOSEN (No 2) [2011] NSWDC 261

R v Bruce GOSEN (No 2) [2011] NSWDC 261

The evidence was not formally tendered as coincidence or tendency evidence, but in substance amounted to coincidence evidence. Its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly the risk that the jury would impermissibly use the evidence as coincidence evidence. Therefore, the evidence was refused admission under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Parties
Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Bruce Edward Gosen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application to admit evidence refused
Legal Topics
Evidence, Admissibility, Coincidence Evidence, System Evidence, Unfair Prejudice
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility Coincidence Evidence System Evidence Unfair Prejudice

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Crown

Bruce Edward Gosen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed evidence regarding statements by another traveller is admissible as evidence of system or coincidence under the Evidence Act 1995, s 137.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was not formally tendered as coincidence or tendency evidence, but in substance amounted to coincidence evidence. Its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly the risk that the jury would impermissibly use the evidence as coincidence evidence. Therefore, the evidence was refused admission under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Application to admit evidence refused

Orders

  • Evidence tendered by the Crown under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 is not admitted