CGL v DPP [2010] VSCA 26 (23 February 2010)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2010/26.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Trial – Severance – Sexual offences – Four complainants – Trial judge ordered separate trial of counts relating to one complainant – Whether separate trials necessary of counts relating to other complainants – Coincidence evidence – Tendency evidence – No sufficient similarity – No cross-admissibility – Appeal allowed – Separate trials ordered – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 371, 372, Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 94, 97, 98, 101, Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ss 295(2), 295(3)(b), 300(2)(b)(i)

EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Criminal proceedings – Coincidence and tendency evidence – Whether sufficient degree of similarity – Whether ‘significant probative value’ – Evidence inadmissible – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 94, 97, 98, 101.