---
title: "Check a tendency or coincidence notice against the notice rule"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/check-a-tendency-or-coincidence-notice-against-the-notice-rule"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A20-WR20261022-7"
practice_area: "Criminal Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Check a tendency or coincidence notice against the notice rule

> From the notice and the brief, check only the notice rules the bench book states. For tendency evidence, subject to section 97(2), a party must give reasonable notice in writing in accordance with section 5 of the…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/check-a-tendency-or-coincidence-notice-against-the-notice-rule  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Criminal Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the notice and the brief, check only the notice rules the bench book states. For tendency evidence, subject to section 97(2), a party must give reasonable notice in writing in accordance with section 5 of the Evidence Regulation 2026: sections 97(1)(a) and 99. For coincidence evidence, subject to section 98(2), a party must give reasonable notice in writing in accordance with section 6 of that regulation: sections 98(1)(a) and 99. The bench book says reasonableness is for the court, and matters which may be relevant include the timing of service relative to the trial, any adverse impact of that timing, the nature and breadth of the evidence, and whether the evidence was already in the brief or identified as evidence the prosecution may rely on. It is not mandatory to take non-compliance with rules made under section 99 into account, though it might be relied on in an appropriate case. Section 100 lets the court direct that the rule does not apply despite a failure to give notice. The regulation, and the cases the bench book cites for the contents of a notice, were not opened. Do not invent those contents, and do not reformulate the tendency or the coincidence beyond the words of the notice. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether the notice is reasonable, whether the tendency or coincidence is stated clearly enough, and whether a direction dispensing with notice should be sought. The bench book says the tendency to be proved must be clearly articulated before a ruling, and that the court should not add elements that are not in the notice. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: From the notice and the brief, check only the notice rules the bench book states. For tendency evidence, subject to section 97(2), a party must give reasonable notice in writing in accordance with section 5 of the Evidence Regulation 2026: sections 97(1)(a) and 99. For coincidence evidence, subject to section 98(2), a party must give reasonable notice in writing in accordance with section 6 of that regulation: sections 98(1)(a) and 99. The bench book says reasonableness is for the court, and matters which may be relevant include the timing of service relative to the trial, any adverse impact of that timing, the nature and breadth of the evidence, and whether the evidence was already in the brief or identified as evidence the prosecution may rely on. It is not mandatory to take non-compliance with rules made under section 99 into account, though it might be relied on in an appropriate case. Section 100 lets the court direct that the rule does not apply despite a failure to give notice. The regulation, and the cases the bench book cites for the contents of a notice, were not opened. Do not invent those contents, and do not reformulate the tendency or the coincidence beyond the words of the notice.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether the notice is reasonable, whether the tendency or coincidence is stated clearly enough, and whether a direction dispensing with notice should be sought. The bench book says the tendency to be proved must be clearly articulated before a ruling, and that the court should not add elements that are not in the notice.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Keep tendency on sections 97 and regulation section 5, and coincidence on sections 98 and regulation section 6.
2. Do not draft the contents of the notice. The regulation and the cases cited for those contents were not opened.
3. Do not add an element to the tendency that is not written in the notice.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [Judicial Commission of New South Wales: Tendency, coincidence and background evidence](https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/tendency_and_coincidence_evidence.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/check-a-tendency-or-coincidence-notice-against-the-notice-rule/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*