R v MR

The case of R v MR involves an appeal by the Crown against a ruling that excluded coincidence evidence and severed counts on the indictment. The primary judge's decision was challenged on the basis that it eliminated or substantially weakened the prosecution's case, pursuant to the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of coincidence evidence under the Evidence Act 1995, specifically sections 55, 95, 98, and 101, and whether the ruling on the admissibility of this evidence substantially weakened the prosecution's case.

The court examined whether the evidence of coincidence, which was excluded, had significant probative value as required by section 98(1) of the Evidence Act. The court found that the primary judge was incorrect in her assessment that the evidence did not have significant probative value. Given the strong evidence connecting MR to counts 4 and 5, and the relatively weaker evidence connecting him to counts 1, 2, and 3, the coincidence evidence was crucial in bolstering the prosecution's case for the latter counts. The court held that the exclusion of this evidence substantially weakened the prosecution's case on counts 1, 2, and 3. The court also found that the severing of counts on the indictment was an interlocutory order that could be appealed under section 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, leading to a consideration of whether the interlocutory judgment or order was substantively significant.

The court concluded that the primary judge's rulings on the admissibility of coincidence evidence and the severing of counts on the indictment were erroneous and that these decisions substantially weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings. The court ordered that the coincidence evidence be admitted and that the counts on the indictment be rejoined for trial.