Case Commentary - PNJ v DPPIntroductionVictoria and New South Wales (NSW) take a similar approach in relation to evidence of trend and coincidence ("the evidence"). However, until the KJM case (No. 2), they took different approaches in reviewing trial sentences. This case commentary discusses the different approaches used in Victoria and NSW, assuming that the admissibility of evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not a separate decision. FactsPNJ v DPP is an appeal case regarding sexual assault against adolescents by the applicant. The crime allegedly took place at the Youth Training Centre, in the eastern suburbs of Victoria, where the appellant worked as a supervisor. The Crown issued notices under ss 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act (EA) 2008 (Vic), intending to lead evidence against the appellant at trial. The trial judge ruled that the coincidence evidence was admissible but the trend evidence was inadmissible. The appellant's lawyer asked the judge for a certificate to cross-appeal to the Court of Appeal against the admissibility of the coincidence evidence. The Court of Appeal accepted the appeal, declaring the coincident evidence inadmissible. It took a different approach to NSW in reviewing the evidence ruling. Court of Appeal of Victoria Supported the view in Tasmania that a court of appeal should consider the evidence again when reviewing a trial judge's ruling. There has been no dispute on this issue where both parties in this case have agreed with the approach taken. Therefore, it can be said that the reasoning of Underwood CJ in L v Tasmania and Basten JA (in dissent) in Zhang was accepted. NSW Court of A...... middle of paper ......to follow the NSWCA's approach, after considering Dao's reasoning. It is now consistent in this issue across NSW and Victoria.BibliographyA Articles/Books/ReportsGans, Jeremy and Andrew Palmer, Uniform Evidence (Oxford University Press, 2010)Swift, Eleanor, 'One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer's Triumph' , [2000] California law review, 2437Heydon, JD, Cross on Evidence, Lexis Nexis Butterworth, 8th edition, 2010) Odgers, Stephen, Uniform Evidence Law, Thomson Reuters, 8th edition, 2009)B CasesDao v R (2011) 278 ALR 765 at 796House v R(1936) 55 CLR 499KJM (No 2) [2011] VSCA 268L v Tasmania(2006) 15 Tas R 381La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 299R v Fletcher( 2005 )156 A Crim R 308R v Ford (2009) 273 ALR 286R v Zhang(2005) 227 ALR 311C LegislationEvidence Act 2008 (Vic)