Some cases that have considered relationship, context, tendency and coincidence evidence in the context of domestic and family violence include:
Queen v Pamkal [2019] NTSC 80 (15 October 2019) – Northern Territory Supreme Court
Roach v The Queen [2011] HCA 12 (4 May 2011) – High Court of Australia (appeal from Queensland Court of Appeal)
Norman v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 230 (9 November 2012) – New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Pasoski v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 309 (15 December 2014) – New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
R v Grant [2016] NTSC 54 (31 October 2016) – Northern Territory Supreme Court
Tasmania v Finnegan (No 2) [2012] TASSC 1 (19 January 2012) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Benson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 51 (28 March 2014) – Victorian Court of Appeal
Lewis (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 40 (27 February 2018) – Victorian Court of Appeal
DPP (Victoria) v Paulino (Ruling No 1) [2017] VSC 343 (17 June 2017) – Victorian Supreme Court
R v De Beyer [2017] NSWSC 752 (13 June 2017) – New South Wales Supreme Court
Evidence which demonstrates that allegations of domestic and family violence do not occur in a vacuum can be valuable in establishing victim credibility and perpetrator propensity to engage in abusive behaviour. Relationship, context, tendency (propensity) and coincidence (similar fact) evidence can all be invaluable in establishing a case against an accused perpetrator, however if used to infer guilt such evidence is also inherently prejudicial.
In most Australian jurisdictions the law of evidence is codified in evidence acts collectively referred to as the Uniform Evidence Law (“UEL”). The UEL is comprised of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT), Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) and Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).
While not identical in each jurisdiction, the UEL provides a cohesive approach to evidence issues across much of Australia. Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia each retain a unique combination of common law and statute (Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), Evidence Act 1929 (SA) and Evidence Act 1906 (WA). In Queensland s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 specifically provides that evidence of the history of the domestic relationship between the defendant and the complainant is admissible evidence in criminal proceedings.
In UEL jurisdictions a number of judicial bench books provide assistance in directing a finder of fact where tendency or coincidence evidence is relevant:
New South Wales
Victoria
In other jurisdictions the following bench books may be helpful:
Queensland
South Australia
Evidence which demonstrates that allegations of domestic and family violence do not occur in a vacuum can be valuable in establishing victim credibility and perpetrator propensity to engage in abusive behaviour. Relationship, context, tendency (propensity) and coincidence (similar fact) evidence can all be invaluable in establishing a case against an accused perpetrator, however if used to infer guilt such evidence is also inherently prejudicial.
In most Australian jurisdictions the law of evidence is codified in evidence acts collectively referred to as the Uniform Evidence Law (“UEL”). The UEL is comprised of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT), Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) and Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).
While not identical in each jurisdiction, the UEL provides a cohesive approach to evidence issues across much of Australia. Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia each retain a unique combination of common law and statute (Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), Evidence Act 1929 (SA) and Evidence Act 1906 (WA). In Queensland s 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 specifically provides that evidence of the history of the domestic relationship between the defendant and the complainant is admissible evidence in criminal proceedings.
In UEL jurisdictions a number of judicial bench books provide assistance in directing a finder of fact where tendency or coincidence evidence is relevant:
New South Wales
Victoria
In other jurisdictions the following bench books may be helpful:
Queensland
South Australia