SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE
Evolution of SFE
R v Straffon – A charged with murder of L and the prosecution tendered evidence
relating to 2 other girls with the same MO. A had been charged with murder of the 2
previously girls but pleaded insanity, escaped the mental institution and murdered L.
- Court said it will admit SFE of the 2 previous girls because it was relevant to
establish A’s identity.
- The probative value of the SFE was based on A’s propensity
> A had a propensity which was unusual, and this propensity was relevant
which made SFE admissible.
DPP v Boardman
- The court broadened the definition of SFE and the admissibility of it.
- SFE (as circumstantial evidence) is admissible when it’s probative value
outweighs its prejudicial effect.
- SA courts have given this case a flawed emphasis – it said the probative force of
SFE derived from its striking similarity to the fact in issue, criticism:
> Probative force can derive from striking similarity but you cannot use
striking similarity as a criterion in every case to determine whether it’s
probative force outweighs it’s prejudicial effect.
> SFE cannot be restricted in this way as there is no single manner of
resolving the inquiry.
Relationship between nexus and coincidence
In order for SFE to be admissible there must be a nexus between SFE and the fact
in issue (not just a similarity and not just attesting to solely to the character of the
accused).
Test of coincidence – can SFE be explained away as a coincidence?
- If yes then SFE has no probative value.
- SFE is only relevant and admissible if it goes beyond a coincidence.
R v Bond
, A convicted of unlawfully procuring an abortion on J. A said the abortion was
accidental and the instruments were used in a normal way. The court admitted
evidence of another woman who said she and dozens of women got abortions for A.
- The SFE was admissible because it made the accident argument implausible.
- The nexus can be found in the extreme unlikeliness of a coincidence.
R v Smith
A charged with the murder of woman who he had a bigamous marriage with, he took
out life insurance on her before killing her, but he said the death was due to an
epileptic fit. The prosecution brought evidence that his 2 previous wives died under
similar circumstances, with insurance policies.
- SFE is admissible because it was relevant to rebut A’s defense.
- The occurrence of so many accidents which benefitted A could not be explained
by a coincidence.
Dependence of SFE with other available evidence
The relevance of SFE will be determined through the strength of other available
evidence – R v Ball
- A brother and sister were charged with incest because they lived in a 1-bedroom
house and were seen coming from the bedroom half-dressed
> This evidence was vague, so the court allowed SFE (they were husband
and wife before incest was a crime, they shared a bed and had a baby).
> The SFE had strong probative value given the other evidence.
Exclusion of SFE – National Foods
P was a pig farmer who claimed the pigs died after eating food sold to him by D, P
attempted to admit evidence from neighbor farms whose pigs ate the food and died.
- SFE is irrelevant and insufficiently similar because the evidence didn’t show
> Neighbors bought the food during the same time period
> All the pigs became ill within the same period of eating it.
> Conditions of the farms were similar.
> The food came from the same batch.
Evolution of SFE
R v Straffon – A charged with murder of L and the prosecution tendered evidence
relating to 2 other girls with the same MO. A had been charged with murder of the 2
previously girls but pleaded insanity, escaped the mental institution and murdered L.
- Court said it will admit SFE of the 2 previous girls because it was relevant to
establish A’s identity.
- The probative value of the SFE was based on A’s propensity
> A had a propensity which was unusual, and this propensity was relevant
which made SFE admissible.
DPP v Boardman
- The court broadened the definition of SFE and the admissibility of it.
- SFE (as circumstantial evidence) is admissible when it’s probative value
outweighs its prejudicial effect.
- SA courts have given this case a flawed emphasis – it said the probative force of
SFE derived from its striking similarity to the fact in issue, criticism:
> Probative force can derive from striking similarity but you cannot use
striking similarity as a criterion in every case to determine whether it’s
probative force outweighs it’s prejudicial effect.
> SFE cannot be restricted in this way as there is no single manner of
resolving the inquiry.
Relationship between nexus and coincidence
In order for SFE to be admissible there must be a nexus between SFE and the fact
in issue (not just a similarity and not just attesting to solely to the character of the
accused).
Test of coincidence – can SFE be explained away as a coincidence?
- If yes then SFE has no probative value.
- SFE is only relevant and admissible if it goes beyond a coincidence.
R v Bond
, A convicted of unlawfully procuring an abortion on J. A said the abortion was
accidental and the instruments were used in a normal way. The court admitted
evidence of another woman who said she and dozens of women got abortions for A.
- The SFE was admissible because it made the accident argument implausible.
- The nexus can be found in the extreme unlikeliness of a coincidence.
R v Smith
A charged with the murder of woman who he had a bigamous marriage with, he took
out life insurance on her before killing her, but he said the death was due to an
epileptic fit. The prosecution brought evidence that his 2 previous wives died under
similar circumstances, with insurance policies.
- SFE is admissible because it was relevant to rebut A’s defense.
- The occurrence of so many accidents which benefitted A could not be explained
by a coincidence.
Dependence of SFE with other available evidence
The relevance of SFE will be determined through the strength of other available
evidence – R v Ball
- A brother and sister were charged with incest because they lived in a 1-bedroom
house and were seen coming from the bedroom half-dressed
> This evidence was vague, so the court allowed SFE (they were husband
and wife before incest was a crime, they shared a bed and had a baby).
> The SFE had strong probative value given the other evidence.
Exclusion of SFE – National Foods
P was a pig farmer who claimed the pigs died after eating food sold to him by D, P
attempted to admit evidence from neighbor farms whose pigs ate the food and died.
- SFE is irrelevant and insufficiently similar because the evidence didn’t show
> Neighbors bought the food during the same time period
> All the pigs became ill within the same period of eating it.
> Conditions of the farms were similar.
> The food came from the same batch.
