if, when the representation was made, the occurrence of the asserted fact was fresh in the memory of the person who made the representation. (2A) In determining whether the occurrence of the asserted fact was fresh in the memory of a person, the court may take into account all matters that it considers are relevant to the question, including— nature of the event concerned; and age and health of the person; and period of time between the occurrence of the asserted fact and the making of the representation. Note Subsection (2A) was inserted as a response to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606. (3) If a representation was made for the purpose of indicating the evidence that the person who made it would be able to give in an Australian or overseas proceeding, subsection (2) does not apply to evidence adduced by the prosecutor of the representation unless the representation concerns the identity of a person, place or thing. (4) A document containing a representation to which subsection (2) applies must not be tendered before the conclusion of the examination in chief of the person who made the representation, unless the court gives leave. Note
act or had a particular state of mind on the basis that, having regard to any similarities in the events or the circumstances in which they occurred, or any similarities in both the events and the circumstances in which they occurred, it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally unless— party seeking to adduce the evidence gave reasonable notice in writing to each other party of the party's intention to adduce the evidence; and thinks that the evidence will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence adduced or to be adduced by the party seeking to adduce the evidence, have significant probative value. Note One of the events referred to in subsection (1) may be an the occurrence of which is a fact in issue in the proceeding. (2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply if— evidence is adduced in accordance with any directions made by the court under section 100; or evidence is adduced to explain or contradict coincidence evidence adduced by another party. Note Other provisions of this Act, or of other laws, may operate as exceptions to the coincidence rule.
identification made wholly or partly by the person who made the identification examining pictures kept for the use of police officers. (2) Picture identification evidence adduced by the prosecutor is not admissible if the pictures examined suggest that they are pictures of persons in police custody. (3) Subject to subsection (4), picture identification evidence adduced by the prosecutor is not admissible if— S. 115(3)(a) amended by No. 68/2009 s. 97(Sch. item 55.33(a)). the pictures were examined, the accused was in the custody of a police officer of the police force investigating the commission of the offence with which the accused has been charged; and S. 115(3)(b) amended by No. 68/2009 s. 97(Sch. item 55.33(a)). picture of the accused that was examined was made before the accused was taken into that police custody. (4) Subsection (3) does not if— S. 115(4)(a) amended by No. 68/2009 s. 97(Sch. item 55.33). appearance of the accused had changed significantly between the time when the offence was committed and the time when the accused was taken into that custody; or S. 115(4)(b) amended by No. 68/2009 s. 97(Sch. item 55.33(a)).