R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174 Hearing dates: 30 March 2016 Date of orders: 17 August 2016 Decision date: 17 August 2016 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Rothman J at [94]; McCallum J at [95] Decision: (1) Appeal allowed in part. (2) Rule that the evidence referred to in par 3 of the amended notice of coincidence evidence, dated 28 October 2015, so far as it relates to the armed robbery at the Caltex Service Station St Ives on 12 May 2014 and the offences the subjects of Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the indictment, presented against the respondents on 28 October 2015, is admissible as coincidence evidence on each of those counts. (3) Otherwise dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – tendency and coincidence evidence – whether error in failing to consider tendency and/or coincidence evidence cumulatively – whether error in failing to consider tendency and/or coincidence evidence in the context of the whole of the evidence adduced by the Crown Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97, 114 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 56, 97, 98, 101 Cases Cited: DAO v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 63; 81 NSWLR 568 DSJ v R [2012] NSWCCA 9; 84 NSWLR 758 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 90 ALJR 529 R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174; 217 A Crim R 487 R v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236 R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; 66 NSWLR 228 R v Zhang [2005] NSWCCA 437; 158 A Crim R 504 Texts Cited: J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (10th ed 2015, Lexis Nexis) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown (Appellant) Mr Hilnand Matonwal (Respondent) Mr Ahmad Amood (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M M Cinque SC (Appellant) G Stanton (Respondent Matonwal) R Webb (Respondent Amood)