← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case similar fact evidence

The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym)

(2018) 266 CLR 56
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2018
StatusBinding authority

Summary

High Court of Australia clarified jury directions required for tendency and coincidence evidence under Uniform Evidence Act ss 97 and 98, including permissible use directions.

Key Principle

jury directions; tendency and coincidence evidence; Uniform Evidence Act ss 97, 98; directing on permissible use

Area of Law

criminal

Related Cases

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123

Appellate court must itself assess whether jury verdict was unreasonable where unchallenged opportunity evidence raised reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (2020) 272 CLR 177

Search warrant executed at journalist's home held invalid for technical defects; High Court considered scope of implied freedom of political communication but declined to quash the warrant on that basis.

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57

The High Court considered the Browne v Dunn rule and the appropriate jury directions when a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a matter it intends to contradict.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym) and how it applies to your situation.

Explain The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym...