This provision has not been checked by a human. The text below was read automatically from the official PDF and has not yet been verified against it, so it may differ from the provision as published — in its wording, its numbering, or where one provision ends and the next begins. For the authorised text, see legislation.vic.gov.au.
provides a further consideration in relation to the admissibility of both tendency and coincidence evidence adduced in a criminal proceeding. In such a proceeding, where tendency or coincidence evidence is not ruled out by clauses 97 or 98, the court must then consider whether the probative value of such evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect that it may have on the defendant. See clause 97 above for an explanation of the defined term probative value. Whilst the term "substantially" is not defined, the 2005 LRCs' Report makes it clear that the clause is not intended to be read narrowly and the court should engage in an act of balancing the probative value of the evidence with the prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant. In carrying out this test, the court is not to rule out evidence merely because it finds there is a "reasonable view" of the evidence that is consistent with innocence. The 2005 LRCs' Report also supported the application of the test outlined by Spigelman CJ in the decision of R v Ellis (2003) 58 NSWLR. This clause does not prevent the prosecution from adducing tendency or coincidence evidence to explain or contradict tendency or coincidence evidence adduced by the defendant.