Myths, misconceptions and mixed messages: An early look at the new tendency and coincidence evidence provisions

Abstract

Following the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse, Uniform Evidence Law jurisdictions are implementing reforms to the tendency and coincidence evidence provisions. These reforms aim to relax the exclusionary rules so that the prosecution can more readily rely upon other allegations against the defendant and the defendant's prior guilty pleas. The reforms purport to address the traditional misconception that such evidence would lack probative value unless the defendant's other misconduct shares distinctive similarities with the charged offence. The reforms can be expected to increase the rate of successful prosecutions. However, these benefits are likely to be compromised by the reforms' unnecessary complexity. Rather than improve understanding of the inferential value of other misconduct evidence, the reforms may sow confusion, wasting the resources of courts, and creating associated costs for complainants, defendants, and other participants.