Director of Public Prosecutionsv.Adam Paul Hutchinson. [2008] NSWLC 27

Director of Public Prosecutionsv.Adam Paul Hutchinson. [2008] NSWLC 27

The evidence sought to be led as tendency and coincidence evidence does not satisfy the statutory requirements under Sections 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because it lacks sufficient probative value and does not involve events that are substantially and relevantly similar. Even if admissible, its probative value would not substantially outweigh potential prejudice under Section 101. The evidence does not amount to a pattern of violence within the meaning of Section 562D(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Judgment on Admissibility of Tendency and Coincidence Evidence Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application to admit tendency and coincidence evidence refused; evidence ruled inadmissible for those purposes; application to admit as pattern of violence under s 562D(2) also refused.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'apprehended Personal Violence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'apprehended Personal Violence']

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 / Interlocutory Judgment on Admissibility of Tendency and Coincidence Evidence Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence sought to be admitted as tendency or coincidence evidence satisfies the requirements of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Sections 97, 98 and 101;' 'Whether the evidence is relevant and admissible as evidence of a pattern of violence under Section 562D(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence sought to be led as tendency and coincidence evidence does not satisfy the statutory requirements under Sections 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because it lacks sufficient probative value and does not involve events that are substantially and relevantly similar. Even if admissible, its probative value would not substantially outweigh potential prejudice under Section 101. The evidence does not amount to a pattern of violence within the meaning of Section 562D(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Application to admit tendency and coincidence evidence refused; evidence ruled inadmissible for those purposes; application to admit as pattern of violence under s 562D(2) also refused.

Orders

  • ["Evidence particularised in the DPP's Notice ruled inadmissible as tendency or coincidence evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Evidence ruled inadmissible as evidence of a pattern of violence under Section 562D(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).']