R v Xie (No 12)

The case before the court involved a criminal appeal by the respondent, Xie, against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The respondent was convicted of several offences, including drug trafficking and possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of evidence under section 98 of the Evidence Act, which concerns the admissibility of coincidence evidence, and whether the Crown's failure to give reasonable notice should result in leave being granted under section 192. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the respondent's appeal, finding that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence and that no leave should be granted under section 192.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting coincidence evidence under section 98 of the Evidence Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the evidence, which showed a significant coincidence in the possession of certain items by the respondent, was admissible and whether the Crown's failure to give reasonable notice of this evidence warranted granting leave under section 192. The respondent argued that the coincidence evidence should not have been admitted due to the Crown's failure to provide reasonable notice, as required by section 192 of the Evidence Act.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the coincidence evidence under section 98. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted because it was relevant and had a probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court further held that the Crown's failure to provide reasonable notice did not warrant granting leave under section 192. The court reasoned that the evidence was not so surprising or unexpected that it would cause unfairness to the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.