Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence in Insider Trading Cases
📌 In brief
The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed an appeal about the admissibility of coincidence evidence in insider trading cases. The court ruled that coincidence evidence can be admitted if it has significant probative value and is not solely based on improbability of coincidence.
⚖️ Legal holding
Coincidence evidence can be admitted if it has significant probative value and is not solely based on improbability of coincidence.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that evidence showing two or more events happened cannot be used to prove someone did a specific act or had a certain state of mind simply because the events seem unlikely to happen by chance. However, such evidence can be admitted if it has significant probative value and the court is notified in advance.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a legal practitioner.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- Coincidence evidence can be admitted if it has significant probative value.
- The court must evaluate whether the evidence has significant probative value independently of the jury's role in assessing guilt.
- Alternative inferences inconsistent with guilt must be recognized but not weighed by the judge.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Coincidence evidence should be excluded if it relies solely on the improbability of coincidence.
- The judge should not ignore alternative inferences inconsistent with guilt during the admissibility evaluation.
- The trial judge must consider the impact of alternative explanations on the probative value of the evidence.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether coincidence evidence should be admitted in insider trading cases.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to allow the appeal, emphasising the need for coincidence evidence to have significant probative value and be relevant to the charges.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1043A(1) and the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 98 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the requirement for coincidence evidence to have significant probative value and be relevant to the charges.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the appeal.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can admit coincidence evidence if it has significant probative value and is relevant to the charges.