ONE (1) English Common Law Country that applied English Law such as United Kingdom,

Ireland, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, etc.

<<<<<<<Australia – Uniform Evidence Acts (UEA)>>>>>>>

Under UEA, “propensity evidence” and “similar fact evidence” are governed by the “tendency rule”
in s 97 and the “coincidence rule” in s 98.

Tendency Rule - Evidence about the accused's "character," "reputation," "behaviour," or "tendency"
is not admissible unless (a) the accused has been given notice and (b) the evidence has "substantial
probative value." The "probative value of the evidence" is described as "the amount to which the
evidence could logically alter the evaluation of the probability of the existence of a fact in dispute,"
even if UEA does not specify how "probative" the evidence must be. When evidence is presented "for
the purpose" of demonstrating the accused's predisposition to act in a certain way, section 97 would
be put into operation.

Coincidence Rule - Evidence regarding "related events" is generally prohibited unless notice is made
and the court is persuaded that it has "strong probative value," and must be "substantially and
relevantly comparable".

Criminal Proceedings - In criminal proceedings under s. 101, a safeguard was included that required
the probative value of either the inclination or coincidence evidence to "significantly outweigh any
adverse effect." However, the level of "probativeness" need not be such that just one inference, i.e. the
accused's guilt, could be made. ("No logical justification test")

Analysis - The "balancing test" approach, which UEA clearly follows, requires that the probative
impact of the evidence "substantially" outweigh the adverse impact on the accused. Additionally,
because the accused would not be overly "surprised," the introduction of the notice system would
lessen the "prejudicial effect."

The Australian Law Reform Commission noted that there is considerable ambiguity regarding what is
meant by "significantly probative" and when the probative effect will "substantially outweigh" the
prejudicial effect. Significantly, the factfinder and the lawmaker differ in Australia.

Bench trials run a higher risk of bias if the judge's discretion is heavily relied upon, and this risk is
increased by the balancing test's ambiguity and broad application.
ONE (1) Horizontal Country (same region – same Greenwich line with Malaysia, upper or
lower from Malaysia) such as Singapore (lower), Indonesia (same), India (upper), Africa (same),
etc.

<<<<<<<INDIA – The Indian Evidence Act>>>>>>>

A review in 2003 resulted to some changes being made to sections 11, 14, and 15 of The Indian
Evidence Act, which served as the basis for the EA. The modifications, though, were incredibly
slight.

Section 11 - Facts that are not otherwise relevant are relevant if they: (1) conflict with any relevant
fact or issue; (2) stand alone or in combination with other facts to render the existence or non-
existence of any relevant fact or problem very probable or improbable.

The sort of evidence made relevant under section 11 was qualified by an explanation that was
included following section 11(2), stating that the level of relevancy depends on "the opinion of the
Court."

Section 14 - When the existence of any such state of mind, body, or bodily feeling is in question or
relevant, facts demonstrating that state of mind—such as intention, knowledge, good faith,
negligence, rashness, ill will toward a specific person, or the existence of any state of body or bodily
feeling—are relevant.

A fact that is significant for demonstrating the existence of a pertinent state of mind must demonstrate
that the state of mind is present, not generally, but with respect to the specific subject at
hand.However, a person's prior conviction must also be a relevant fact when, during the course of
their trial, they are accused of a crime and their prior commission of the crime is relevant under the
terms of this section.

Changes were made to Illustration (h) of Section 14 to make it clear that the evidence of a similar fact
must demonstrate that "A" had actual or constructive knowledge of the public notice of the loss of the
property.

Section 15 - The fact that the act in question was one of a string of related events in which the person
who committed it was involved is crucial when determining whether it was unintentional or
purposeful, or done with a specific knowledge or goal.

The modifications merely demonstrate that the "same person" must do the acts made in accordance
with section 15 of the Act.
Analysis - It would seem that the Indian Evidence Act's modifications have little to no effect on the
law. However, the change to section 11 specifically states that the "opinions of the court" are
considered when determining how relevant a fact is, which suggests a method more in line with the
balancing test.