Miles v The Queen

The Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory considered an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling made by a trial judge. The applicant, Miles, sought leave to appeal a decision concerning the admissibility of evidence under section 98 of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT). The Crown had applied to admit evidence of three separate robberies as "coincidence" evidence, arguing that the similarities between the events made them improbable to have occurred coincidentally. The defence had also made a separate application for separate trials, contingent on the Crown's application being dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal the trial judge's interlocutory ruling on the admissibility of the coincidence evidence should be granted. This required the Court to consider whether the ruling was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant appellate intervention, whether a substantial injustice would result from refusing leave, and whether granting leave would inappropriately fragment the trial process. The Court also considered the principles governing the admission of coincidence evidence, specifically whether its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect, and whether there was a risk of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Penfold J reasoned that the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence on a coincidence basis was sound. The similarities between the robberies were such that their occurrence coincidentally was improbable, and the probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect. The Court found no risk that a properly instructed jury would reason inappropriately. Consequently, the decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant appellate consideration, no injustice would result from refusing leave, and granting leave would inappropriately fragment the trial process. No exceptional circumstances justified granting leave.

Accordingly, leave to appeal the ruling of the trial judge was refused.