R v John George BORG, Douglas John Frederick CARROLL, Wayne Frederick FEAR No.1. BORG: Crown Application for Coincidence Direction [2015] NSWDC 117

R v John George BORG, Douglas John Frederick CARROLL, Wayne Frederick FEAR No.1. BORG: Crown Application for Coincidence Direction [2015] NSWDC 117

The statutory tests in ss 98 and 101 Evidence Act 1995 have been satisfied; the evidence of the 15 and 29 November 2012 incidents has significant probative value that substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect, and it is necessary to allow the Crown to rely on such evidence to rebut the defence contention that the events occurred coincidentally.

Parties
Prosecution: Crown (Director Public Prosecutions); Accused: John George Borg; Accused: Douglas John Frederick Carroll; Accused: Wayne Frederick Fear
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Crown Application for Coincidence Direction
Outcome
Leave granted to the Crown to rely on the evidence of the 15 November 2012 incident as coincidence evidence in relation to the 29 November 2012 event.
Legal Topics
Coincidence Evidence, Probative Value, Circumstantial Evidence, Insurance Fraud
Criminal Law Evidence Law Coincidence Evidence Probative Value Circumstantial Evidence Insurance Fraud

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown (Director Public Prosecutions)

Prosecution

John George Borg

Accused

Douglas John Frederick Carroll

Accused

Wayne Frederick Fear

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Crown Application for Coincidence Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown should be granted leave to use evidence of the 15 November 2012 incident as coincidence evidence in relation to the 29 November 2012 incident involving John George Borg
  2. 2 Whether the statutory tests in ss 98 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 are satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory tests in ss 98 and 101 Evidence Act 1995 have been satisfied; the evidence of the 15 and 29 November 2012 incidents has significant probative value that substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect, and it is necessary to allow the Crown to rely on such evidence to rebut the defence contention that the events occurred coincidentally.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the Crown to rely on the evidence of the 15 November 2012 incident as coincidence evidence in relation to the 29 November 2012 event.

Orders

  • The Crown is granted leave to use the evidence to prove that the two events involving the destruction of the Mazda were not coincidental.