R v Joffe; R v Stromer

In the case of R v Joffe and R v Stromer, two defendants were charged with insider trading offences under section 1043A of the Corporations Act 2001. The Crown alleged ten counts against the two defendants, which involved the trading of securities based on confidential information. The defendants sought orders to determine the admissibility of evidence, specifically the coincidence evidence that the Crown intended to rely on. The evidence pertained to each of the counts charged against each defendant and related to three uncharged matters. Additionally, the defendants requested a separate trial for some of the charges.

The court was tasked with deciding the legal issues surrounding the admissibility of the coincidence evidence, specifically whether the evidence had significant probative value under section 98(1)(b) of the Evidence Act. The court also needed to determine the meaning of "probative value" and whether alternative rational inferences or explanations must be evaluated and assessed when considering the strength of the Crown's inferences. Furthermore, the court had to consider the approach to be taken in a circumstantial evidence case, particularly the proof of facts in issue by inferential reasoning.

The court found that the coincidence evidence had significant probative value and was admissible under section 98(1)(b) of the Evidence Act. The court clarified that when assessing the probative value of coincidence evidence, alternative rational inferences or explanations need not be evaluated and assessed to determine whether the Crown's inferences have greater strength. Instead, the court must determine whether the evidence has significant probative value in relation to a fact in issue in the proceeding. The court also provided guidance on the approach to be taken in a circumstantial evidence case, emphasising the importance of proof of facts in issue by inferential reasoning.

No specific final orders were mentioned in the text, but the court's decision on the admissibility of the evidence would likely have a significant impact on the proceedings against the two defendants.