Dominant Purpose of Providing Advice 'Legal advice' has been characterized as 'the giving of independent legal advice by a (ASIC person acting in the role of a legal adviser giving advice to a client' v Rich [2004] NSWSC 1017). Here, providing information to a client about the insurance position of a company is something a legal adviser would ordinarily do. Therefore, it is likely this element is satisfied. As there is no evidence of Mrs Bourke waiving the privilege in some way, it is likely that if Mrs Bourke objected to the evidence on the basis of client legal privilege under s 118(a), the evidence would not be admissible C Question A3 The evidence may be objected to on the basis that it is not admissible under the coincidence rule. Under the coincidence rule, 'evidence that two or more events happened is not admissible to prove that a person did a particular act on the basis that, having regard to the similarities in the events or the circumstances in which they happened' unless notice has been given and the court thinks the evidence has significant probative value (s 98(1)). Notice in advance is required in writing. The following presumes valid notice was given or waived by application of the plaintiff (s 100(2)). Coincidence In the court determined that the relevant questions are: first, are the CGL v DPP (Vic), similarities in the specified events such that it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally and second, would the evidence of those events tend to prove that the accused did the specified act. This degree of similarity required has also been described as 'strikingly similar' (Pfennig In 1998, 2002 and 2006 v The Queen). Bourke Pty Ltd's furniture business suffered fire damage. In all cases an incendiary device was found in the vicinity and the fire started in the back of the shop. Here, the events are almost entirely the same. First, an incendiary device (gasoline can) was found near the business. Second, the arson investigation specialist testified the fire
Dominant Purpose of Providing Advice 'Legal advice' has been characterized as 'the giving of independent legal advice by a person acting in the role of a legal adviser giving advice to a client' (ASIC v Rich [2004] NSWSC 1017). Here, providing information to a client about the insurance position of a company is something a legal adviser would ordinarily do. Therefore, it is likely this element is satisfied. As there is no evidence of Mrs Bourke waiving the privilege in some way, it is likely that if Mrs Bourke objected to the evidence on the basis of client legal privilege under s 118(a), the evidence would not be admissible C Question A3 The evidence may be objected to on the basis that it is not admissible under the coincidence rule. Under the coincidence rule, 'evidence that two or more events happened is not admissible to prove that a person did a particular act on the basis that, having regard to the similarities in the events or the circumstances in which they happened' unless notice has been given and the court thinks the evidence has significant probative value (s 98(1)). Notice in advance is required in writing. The following presumes valid notice was given or waived by application of the plaintiff (s 100(2)). Coincidence In CGL v DPP (Vic), the court determined that the relevant questions are: first, are the similarities in the specified events such that it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally and second, would the evidence of those events tend to prove that the accused did the specified act. This degree of similarity required has also been described as 'strikingly similar' (Pfennig v The Queen). In 1998, 2002 and 2006 Bourke Pty Ltd's furniture business suffered fire damage. In all cases an incendiary device was found in the vicinity and the fire started in the back of the shop. Here, the events are almost entirely the same. First, an incendiary device (gasoline can) was found near the business. Second, the arson investigation specialist testified the fire
2014-S2-Evidence-Exam-TFL.docx