R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174

R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174

The trial judge erred by failing to consider the cumulative probative value of the proposed coincidence evidence in the context of all the Crown's evidence and by not conducting the evaluative process required under s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The evidence relating to the St Ives robbery and Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 was relevant and had significant probative value for use as coincidence evidence; thus, it was admissible on those counts. However, the evidence did not reach the required threshold for admissibility as tendency evidence or as coincidence evidence for the other counts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Evidentiary Ruling (interlocutory Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence']

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 Appeal / Appeal From Evidentiary Ruling (interlocutory Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether refusal to admit evidence as tendency or coincidence evidence substantially weakened the Crown case' 'Whether the trial judge erred by considering evidence individually rather than cumulatively' 'Whether the trial judge failed to consider probative value of the evidence in the context of the whole of the Crown’s case' 'Whether the evidence should have been admitted as tendency or coincidence evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by failing to consider the cumulative probative value of the proposed coincidence evidence in the context of all the Crown's evidence and by not conducting the evaluative process required under s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The evidence relating to the St Ives robbery and Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 was relevant and had significant probative value for use as coincidence evidence; thus, it was admissible on those counts. However, the evidence did not reach the required threshold for admissibility as tendency evidence or as coincidence evidence for the other counts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'Rule that the evidence referred to in paragraph 3 of the amended notice of coincidence evidence, dated 28 October 2015, so far as it relates to the armed robbery at the Caltex Service Station St Ives on 12 May 2014 and the offences the subjects of Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the...