Date post: | 02-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | phungkhuong |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 1 times |
SUMMARY UEA test of admissibility of evidence =
1. Is the witness competent? 2. Is the evidence relevant? 3. Is the evidence excluded by application of exclusionary rule or privilege? 4. Is the evidence excluded by operation of a discretion?
Major considerations:
• Is it a criminal or civil proceeding?
Getting evidence admitted 1. Is it relevant? 2. Does an exclusionary rule apply? 3.10 to 3.2 in Evidence Act (credibility of character,
privileges) 3. Will the judge apply judicial discretions? (Judge decides if evidence is to be excluded. 4. Is it admissible?
Table of Contents
(1)Templatesforanswersoneachtopic
Topic1&2Introduction(NatureofEvidenceLawandtheUniformLaw)Objectivesofevidencelaw(Truth,Discipline&Protection)OtherobjectivesofevidencelawBackgroundtotheUniformLaw/ActVoirDire(S189(2))BurdenandStandardofProofTypesofEvidence ‘FactinIssue’ Directandcircumstantialevidence S144–mattersofcommonknowledge
Topic3–VerbalEvidence(WitnessesCompetence,CompellabilityandEvidenceinChiefandCrossExamination)
Competence(s12presumption&s13)Compellabilityofawitness(s12presumption)MinorExceptionstocompellability(reducedcapacity,certainpoliticalmembers,judgesandjurors)MajorExceptions FamilymembersoftheaccusedS18 TheaccusedS17–righttosilence CommentonfailuretogiveevidenceS20OtherrelevantSections SwornevidenceofwitnessestobeonoathoraffirmationS21 InterpreterstoactonoathoraffirmationS22 ChoiceofoathoraffirmationS23 Requirementsforoathss24 Alternativeoaths24AProcedures(examinationinchief,cross-examinationandre-examination)ExaminationinChief Prohibitionagainstleadingquestions:s37 Vulnerablewitnesses Witnessreferringtodocumentstorefreshmemory:s32(revivingmemory) Leave Policeofficerreferringtodocuments:s33 Limitationsonrefreshingmemory UnfavourablewitnessesCross-Examination Leadingquestions:s42 Limitationoncross-examination Improperquestions:s41 Cross-examinationofpriorinconsistentstatement:s43Re-examination Re-openingCases
Topic4–DocumentaryEvidenceandOtherEvidenceDocumentaryEvidence Whatisadocument(DictionaryoftheAct(s3) Define‘documentaryevidence’–mustdosoinconjunctionws47(1) LabelsofidentifyingdocumentsProofofthecontentsofthedocumentss48(1)(a)-(f)–thewaysinwhichtheymaybeadduced.
Proofbyadmissionwithrespecttocontentsofdocument:s48(1)(a) Copiesorreproductionsofdocument:s48(1)(b) Transcriptsorsoundrecordingsandcodedmaterial:s48(1)(c) Documentsproducedbycomputersorotherdevices:s48(1)(d) Businessrecords:s48(1)(e) Publicdocuments:s48(1)(f)SafeguardsWheretheoriginaldocumentsarenotavailable:s48(4) Define‘unavailable’Voluminousandcomplexdocuments:s50(1)Authenticationofdocuments
OtherEvidence Definitionof‘otherevidence’ Views(intheAct)–demonstrations,experimentsandinspections Experimentsmadeoutofcourt–notinpresenceofjudgeorjury Experimentsinjuryroom Physicalevidence
Topic5–Relevance
S56:relevantevidencetobeadmissible RelevanceandAdmissibility/exclusionaryrules RelevancedefinitionS55:Relevantevidence(test) Lookats55alongsidejudicialdiscretionins135RvStephenson1976–preevidenceact–notallevidencewhichislogicallyrelevantislegallyadmissible
FurtherCasesInferencesastorelevance:s58ProvisionalRelevance:s57CasestoassistinunderstandinghowtheCourtdeterminesrelevance
Topic6–Hearsay
Summary&HearsayTestTheruleofhearsayCriticismsofthehearsayruleS59Elements(1A&1B)+(2)DifferencebetweenHearsayandNon-HearsayRepresentationswithmultiplerelevanceImpliedHearsayObjectivetestofintention
ExpressHearsay IntentionrequirementEvidenceishearsayif:Exceptionstotheruleagainsthearsay
(1) Evidencethatisrelevantforanon-hearsaypurpose:s60(2) Firsthandhearsayexceptions:s63–66A(3) Moreremoteformsofhearsay(secondhand)
Topic7–OpinionEvidence
TheOpinionRule:s76(opinionevidenceisnotadmissible)RationaleforthisruleCasesExceptions Relevantotherwisethanasopinionevidence:s77 Laywitnessopinions:s78 Expertwitnessopinions:s79
Topic8–AdmissionsWhatareadmissions? DictionarydefinitionExceptions:s81AdmissionsareanexceptiontothehearsayandopinionrulesExclusionofcertainadmissions
Evidence of admissions that is not first-hand (section 82) Use of admissions against third parties (section 83) Admissions influenced by violence and certain other conduct (section 84) Unreliable admissions of an accused (section 85) Records of oral questioning of an accused (section 86)
AdverselyaffectingthetruthofadmissionEvidenceofsilence&inferencesdrawnfromitDiscretionaryexclusionsofadmissions:s90(theunfairnessdiscretion)
Topic9–TendencyandCoincidenceEvidence(SimilarFactEvidence)
SimilarfactevidenceActdividesS.F.Eintotwotypes–tendency&coincidenceCommonlawTheUniformEvidenceActTestsforadmissibility–historyandoverviewofcurrentteststhathavebeenusedTendencyrule:s97Coincidencerule:s98Significantprobativevalue StrikingsimilaritytestSummaryofhowcourtsfactorrelationshipbetweeneventorconducttoassesswhetherevidencehassignificantprobativevalueastendency/coincidenceevidence.ConcoctedorContaminatedEvidenceandSignificantProbativeValue
Criminalcases–tendencyandcoincidenceEvaluationofDangersAssociatedwithSimilarFactEvidence(noneofthesearegenuinerisks)TheImportanceofSimilarFactEvidenceConclusionandreformsuggestionsRelationshipevidenceResgestaedoctrineSummary
Topic10–CredibilityandCharacterEvidenceCredibilityevidenceisprimafacieinadmissiblePart3.7and2.8oftheActgovernCredibilityandCharacterEvidenceGeneralRule–Credibilityevidenceisnotadmissible:s102CredibilitydefinedExceptionsPart3.8oftheAct–CharacterEvidence Goodcharacterevidenceadducedbyaccused:s110RuleinRvSkaf:subjectiveintenttoputtheirgoodcharacterinevidence,whichismorethanmerelydenyguilt.
Exceptionscont. Credibilityevidencegivenbyexpertsoncredibility:s108C
Topic13–PrivilegesCommonlawprivilegesands131A(whichextendsclientlegalprivilegetopre-trialcourtproceedingsandprocedures)Privilegeclaims(s132ands134rules)ClientLegalPrivilege Rationale Scopeofclientlegalprivilege S118–LegaladviceS119–LitigationS117–Definitionswhichassistwiths118/19elementsS120–unrepresentedpartiesOriginalandcopiesofprivilegeddocumentsConsiderationsforthetestofwhethercoveredbyclientlegalprivilege
Exceptions:Lossofclientlegalprivilege S121–Lossofc.l.privilegegenerally S122–Clientcanwaivetheprivilege S123–Accused–ifrequiredbydefendantinacriminalproceeding S124–Jointclients S125–Misconduct/commissionofacrime S126–Relatedcommunicationsanddocuments(ifprivilegelostduetoS121-5) S127–Religiousconfessions S128–Privilegeagainstself-incrimination Rationale 3optionsifthewitness’sobjectionisfoundtobebasedonreasonablegrounds Scopeofthisprivilege S128Certificates S187–Corporations S130–MattersofState Rationale&Scope S133–CourtInspections S131–SettlementNegotiations Rationale&Scope ExceptionsOtherPrivileges S126K–Journalistprivilegerelatingtoidentityofinformant S127–Religiousconfessions(formembersoftheclergy)–asabove^ S129–Judicialreasonsprivilege
Topic11-Discretions
General(Part3.11ofUniformEvidenceAct)S192S135discretion(civil&criminalproceedings) Unfairprejudice(relatestos137also)S136‘maylimit‘discretion(Civil&criminalproceedings) S136andS60–ExceptiontothehearsayruleS137–MandatoryExclusion UnfairlyprejudicialS138–ExclusionofimproperlyandillegallyobtainedevidenceDiscretionaryexclusionWarnings–Part4.5ofUniformEvidenceActS165(1)(d)–awarningofpossibleunreliabilityofevidenceALRC’sdescriptionsofjudicialdiscretions
TOPIC3–VERBALEVIDENCE;WITNESSESCOMPETENCE,COMPELLABILITYANDEVIDENCEINCHIEFANDCROSSEXAMINATIONOUTLINECOMPETENCEANDCOMPELLABILITYOFWITNESSESCompetenceofWitnesses
• Note:Ifyouarecompetent,youarecompellable.• S13presumptionisofCOMPETENCE.• S13Competence-lackofcapacity(examineswhenapersonisNOTcompetent)• RULE:ifthepersondoesnothavethecapacitytounderstandaquestionaboutthefact;othe
persondoesnothavethecapacitytogiveananswerthatcanbeunderstoodtoaquestionaboutthefact-foranyreason(includingamental,intellectualorphysicaldisability)-Apersonisnotcompetenttogiveevidence:s13
CompellabilityofaWitness• RULE:Asper,S12allcompetentwitnessesarecompellable,howeverthereareseveralminorand
onemajorexception.• TheminorexceptionsapplytoALLcases(civilorcriminal)whereas,themajorexceptionsapply
solelytocriminalcases.o Minorexceptionstocompellabilityare(rarelyarise)o MajorExceptionsOnlyAPPLYtoCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS
S18FamilymembersoftheaccusedS17Theaccused(righttosilence)
• RULE:Theaccusedorcoaccusedcannotbecompelledtogiveevidenceincriminalproceedings;
S20.CommentonfailuretogiveevidenceS21.SwornevidenceofwitnessestobeonoathoraffirmationS22.InterpreterstoactonoathoraffirmationS23.ChoiceofoathoraffirmationS24.RequirementsforoathsS24A.AlternativeoathControlontheorderofproceedingsCallingwitnessesEXAMINATIONINCHIEF:
• ThesearefriendlyquestionsProhibitionagainstleadingquestions:S37.
• AleadingquestionisDefinedinPart1oftheDictionaryA)AsaquestionthatdirectlyorindirectlysuggestsaparticularanswertothequestionorB)Assumestheexistenceofafacttheexistenceofwhichisindisputeintheproceedingandastotheexistenceofwhichthewitnesshasnotgivenevidencebeforethequestionisasked.
• NoprohibitionagainstleadingquestionsinCivilproceedingsregardinginvestigations,reportsorinspectionsmadebypeoplewhowereperformingofficialpublicdutiesatthetime:s37(2)
VulnerablewitnessesWitnessesreferringtodocumentstorefreshmemory:S32-Revivingmemory
• S32thismayonlyoccurwithleaveofthecourt.o Leavewillgenerallynotbegivenunless:
§ Witnesshascompletelyexhaustedtheirmemory§ Witnesscannotrecalltheeventwithoutusingthedocument§ Documentwasmadewheneventswerefreshinthememoryofthewitness§ Documentwasaccuratewhenmade:s32(2)
S32. AttemptstorevivememoryincourtS33. EvidencegivenbypoliceofficersS34. AttemptstorevivememoryoutofcourtApplicationofleavetorefertodocument:S192. Leave,permissionordirectionmaybegivenonterms(appliestoallmatterswhereleaveisrequired)
• Beforeleavecanbegrantedtoawitnesstomakereferencetoadocumenttorefreshmemory,thecourthastohaveregardtothematterssetoutins192:StanoevskivR(2001).
• LookatmatterstoberegardedbycourtUnfavourablewitnesses
• S38allowsapartytocross-examinetheirownwitnesswherethewitnessevidenceis‘unfavourable’.
• Note:Again,thecourtmusthaveregardingrantingsuchleave,musthaveregardtothemattersins192(seeabove).
• Whatisanunfavourablewitness?Unfavourablehasbeeninterpretedbroadly
o Weneedmorethanneutralevidence.o AdamvTheQueen2001HCA57,forevidencetobecharacterisedasunfavourable,itmust
haveanunhelpfulqualityaboutit,asopposedtoaneutralquality.CROSS-EXAMINATIONLeadingquestions:s42
• Generallyleadingquestionsarepermitted,pursuanttoS42.• Courtcandisallowthem,howeverthecourtwillhaveregardto;S42(2)-• Indecidingwhethertodisallowleadingquestionsthecourtwillhaveregardto:
o Whetherornottheevidenceisunfavourabletothepartythatcalledthatwitness.o Whetherthatwitnesshasinterestthatisconsistentwithcross-examiningtheparty.o Witnessissympathetictocross-examiningtheparty.o Wherethereisaparticularlyvulnerability.
o Theopposingcounselhasadutytoobject,butalsothejudgehasresponsibility
independentlyofobjectionstopreventmisbehaviourinquestioning:LibkevRLimitationonCrossExamination
• Improperquestions:s41:o S41setsouttheimproperquestionsthatwillbedisallowed.
§ ThecourtMUSTdisallowaquestionputtoawitnessincrossexamination,orinformwitnessesthattheyneednotanswerthequestionifthecourtisoftheopinionthatthequestion:
a. misleadingorconfusing,orb. undulyannoying,harassing,intimidating,offensive,oppressive,
humiliatingorrepetitive,orc. isputtothewitnessinamannerortonethatisbelittling,insultingor
otherwiseinappropriate,ord. hasnobasisotherthanasterotype:s41(3)
o InVictoria,thereisajudicialdiscretiontoallowimproperquestions.‘Maydisallow’.§ Improperquestionsputtovulnerablewitnesses(children,orpeoplewithcognitive
impairmentorintellectualdisability)mustbedisallowed;nodiscretion:s41(4)CrossExaminationofaPriorInconsistentStatementTheneedtoinformwitnessesofthatintentiontoassertcontraryfacts
• Failuretodosorunstheriskofitbeingprecludedfromadducingcontradictoryevidence.
• AtcommonlawthiswasknownastheBrownvDunnrule.ThisisnowreflectedinS46.o Onlyoperatesinrespectofrelevantandadmissibleevidence.
Re–Examination• Re-examinationispermittedinrelationtomattersarisingfromcrossexaminationonly.• Generalrule:ifamatterisnotraisedduringcross-examinationcannotbeamatterforre-
examination.o Notpermissibletoraiseothersubjectmatterswithoutleaveofthecourt;S39bo Mattersarisingfromcross-examinationthoughcanbeaskedwithoutleave;S38a.
• Re-examinationgenerallyoccursinoneofthreesituations:
1. Wherewitnessesconducthasbeencalledintoquestionduringcross-examination2. Wherepartsthatarefavourabletotheothersidehavebeenbroughtoutincross-
examination.3. Wherethewitnesses’credibilityhasbeenbroughtintoquestionduetopriorinconsistent
statement.Re-OpeningCases
• Generalprohibitionagainstapartysplittingtheircase;RvSoma.• Exception:Thismaybepermittedwhere:
1) Awitnessisrecalledbecausetheywerenotchallengedonanissue,whichwassubsequentlythesubjectofcontraryevidence.
2) Evidencerelatestoanoncontroversialissuewhichwasoverlooked.3) Evidencerelatestoamatterwhichcouldnothavebeenreasonablyforeseenwouldemergeas
anissue.4) Theevidencecouldnothavebeenobtainedwithreasonablediligenceatthetimethepartywas
conductingitscase.
TOPIC4:DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEANDOTHEREVIDENCETEMPLATEWHATTYPEOFEVIDENCEISIT?
• GovernedbyPart2.2oftheAct
1. Witnessdescribingthefacts/events=Oralevidencegivenbywitnesses2. Documentsrecordingfacts/events=Documentaryevidence3. Trieroffactdirectlyobservingfacts/events=(realorother/demonstrativeevidence)
• EitherDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEorofOTHEREVIDENCE• Dealingwiththepermissiblemethodsofpresentingevidenceincourt–nottheadmissibility,merely
thewaysitmaybeadduced.(Notlookingatadmissibilityhere)
• ExamTip:Considercarefullywhattypeofevidenceitisthatwearetalkingabout.E.g.Fingerprints,DNAevidenceetc.isoftenreferredtoasrealevidencebutordinarilytheycanonlybeprovedbyoralordocumentaryevidence.
ISITADOCUMENT?• DictionaryoftheAct(s3)definesDocumentasanyrecordofinformation,andincludes
a) Anythingonwhichthereiswriting;orb) Anythingonwhichtherearemarks,figures,symbols,orperforationshavingameaningfor
personsqualifiedtointerpretthem.c) Anythingfromwhichsounds,imagesorwritingscanbereproducedwithorwithouttheaidof
anythingelse.d) Amap,plan,drawingorphotograph
• Recordofinformation
o “Anythingwhichcontainsarecordofinformation”-coverswrittenpaperdocumentsandeverydayitems,suchasmobilephones,whiteboards,DVD’s,taperecordings.
o DefinitionprovidesforUSB’sandipods,andpresumablycoverstransitoryinformation(RAM)providedithasbeencapturedandreproduced.
• Examplesofdocuments:o E.g.bottles,mobilephones,clothingetc.maybeconsideredadocumentaslongasthose
itemscontainarecordofinformation.E.g.memorycards,DVDs,tombstonesandbrandedlivestock.
• Whatisnotadoc?
o Purelydecorativesymbols,orfiguresthathavenomeaningandarenotcoveredbythedefinition(considered‘otherevidence’).
ISITDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE?S47(1)• S47providesthattherulesofdocumentaryevidenceonlyapplytodocuments,thecontentsof
whichareofinterestsintheproceedings.• RULE:Ifthepurposeofadducingthedocumentistoadduceevidenceofitscontentsitis
documentaryevidenceandPart2.2.willbeapplicable.• IfthepurposeistomerelytenderthedocumentasathingitisNOTdocumentaryevidenceandPart
2.2.doesnotapply.
• Labelsoridentifyingdocumentso CLsayslabelsaffixedtoobjectsarenotdocumentaryevidence:CommissionerforRailwaysv
Youngo EvidenceActPart2.2.saysthattheyare.Labelsaredocuments.
o S47(1):theActsaysthatlabelsaredocumentsinthattheyarerecordsofinformation,accordingtothedictionary,andtheyaretenderedfortheircontents.
o S47(2):thecopyneednotbeanexactcopy,aslongasitisidenticalinallrelevantrespects.S48PROVINGCONTENTSOFDOCUMENTS
• AllmattersinS48(1)canbeusedasmethodsofprovingadocumentregardlessofwhetherornotthedocumentinquestionisavailable;S48(2).
(a) ProofbyAdmission
o S48(1)Apartymayadduceevidenceofthecontentsofadocumenttobeprovedbyanadmissionwithrespecttothecontentsofadocument.
o Admission=statementsadversetoaparty’sinterestsintheproceedings.o (3)providesthatinordertoadduceevidenceitmustbe:
- Inrespectoftheparty’scaseagainsttheotherpartywhomadetheconcernedadmission,or
- Inrespectoftheparty’scaseagainstthepartywhoadducedtheevidenceinthatway.
(b) Theoriginaldocumentruleabolished(cannowusecopies)
o S48providesarangeofmethodsbywhichthecontentsofadocumentmaybeproved,includingbycopies,transcripts,oralevidence.
o S48(1))(a)-(f):providesarangeofmethodsforprovingthecontentsofdocuments–thecontentsofdocumentsmaynowbeproved,forexample,viacopies,transcriptofrecordingsandsometimesbytheoralevidenceofwitnesses.
o Allofthesemethodsmaybeusedregardlessofwhethertheoriginaldocumentwasavailabletotheotherpartyornot:s48(2).
(c) Copiesandreproductionsofdocuments:s48(1)(b)o RULE:Apartymayprovethecontentofdocumentbytenderingacopyofit.Thereisno
needtoproducetheoriginaldocumentevenifitisavailable.o S48(1)(b)Adocumentthatis(orpurportstobe)acopyofthedocumentinquestionAND
hasbeenproduced(orpurportstohavebeenproduced)byadevicethatreproducesdocuments.
o Copycannotbehandwritten.E.g.scannedoriginalsonacomputerfile.o Doesnotmatterifthecopyisnotanexactduplication,aslongasitisidenticalinrelevant
respects;S47(2).
(d) Transcriptsorsoundrecordingsandcodedmaterial:S48(1)(c)o RULE:Soundrecordingsandcodedmaterialmaybeprovedbywayoftranscripts.o RvCassar;RvSlieman
(e) Documentsproducedbycomputersorotherdevices:s48(1)(d)
o RULE:Allowsintangibleinformation,suchasthatcontainedincomputerharddrives,orotherdevicestobeprovenbymeansofaprintout.
o Coversinformationthatcanbe‘retrieved,produced,orcollated’fromadevice.o S146presumesreliabilityofsuchdocumentsandS147doessoiftheyareproducedinthe
courseofbusiness.o S147presumptionsarerebuttable,allthatisneededistoadduce‘sufficientevidenceto
raiseadoubtabout’theaccuracyorreliabilityofthedocument.
(f) Businessrecords:s48(1)(e)o RULE:Copies,extractsorsummariesofdocumentsmaybeusedaslongastheyarepartofa
business’srecords.
o S147providesarebuttablepresumptionastothereliabilityofdocumentsproducedbydevicesinthecourseofbusiness.
§ Manydocumentsproducedbyabusinessareinfactcopiesandiftheyareproducedintheordinarycourseofbusinesstheyarereliable.
(g) Publicdocuments:s48(1)(f)o RULE:Publicdocuments,suchasacertificateoftitletoland,maybeprovedbycopiesas
longasanauthorisedprinterhasproducedthecopies.o Relevantauthority–includespersonauthorisedonbehalfofthegovernment,
administrationofstate,parliament.ISTHEDOCUMENTUNAVAILABLE?S48(4)
• RULE:s48(4)allowsunavailabledocumentstobeprovedbycopies,extracts,summariesortheoralevidenceofwitnessesaboutthecontentsofthedocument.
• UnavailabledocumentsdefinedinClause5,Part2oftheDictionary.• Adocumentorthingistakennottobeavailabletoapartyonlyif:
o Cannotbefoundafterreasonableinquiryandsearch,oro Destroyedbyparty,oronbehalfofthepartynotinbadfaith,oro Impracticaltoproducethedocumentorthingduringproceeding,oro Productioncouldrenderpersonliabletoconvictionforanoffence,oro Notinpossessionorundercontroloftheparty
ANDo Cannotbeobtainedbyanyjudicialprocedureofthecourt,oro Inpossessionorundercontrolofanotherpartytotheproceedingwhoknowsormight
reasonablybeexpectedtoknowthatevidenceofthecontentsofthedocumentislikelytoberelevant.
o Wasinpossessionorcontrolofsuchapartyatatimewhenthepartyknewormightreasonablybeexpectedtohaveknownsuchevidencewaslikelytoberelevantintheproceeding.
• S48(4)applieswherenotavailableorthereisnoissueastotheexistenceorthecontentsofthedocument:
• Apartymayadduceevidenceofthecontentsofadocumentinquestionthatisnotavailabletotheparty,ortheexistenceandcontentswhicharenotinissueintheproceedingby:
§ 1.Tenderingdocumentsthatisacopy,extractorsummary§ 2.Adducingwitnessevidenceofthecontentsofthedocumentinquestion.
ISTHEDOCUMENTVOLUMINOUSANDCOMPLEXDOCUMENTS?S50(1)
• RULE:S50allowsforconvenience,bulkevidencetobeadducedintheformofasummary,especiallyforfraudcaseswheretherearealargeamountofdocuments.
• Apartymustapplyforleavetoadduceevidenceintheformofasummaryandthecourtwillgrantleaveifitissatisfiedthatthevolumeorcomplexityofthedocumentsmakesitotherwiseinconvenienttoexaminetheevidence.
AuthenticationofDocuments• RULE:UndertheAct,authenticationisnowconsideredapartofrelevance.Thisisthefirstruleof
admissibility.Lookats55and56.a. Onlyevidence,whichisrelevant,maybeadmitted.
• S57ands58(p8)IFNOTDOCUMENTARYISITOTHEREVIDENCE?(nonverbalandnotdocumentary)WHATISOTHEREVIDENCE?
• Called‘otherevidence,realevidence,demonstrativeevidence’.DealtwithinPart2.3.
• Identifywhattypeof‘otherevidence’itis.o Exhibits–physicalobjectsbroughtintocourt
§ Oncetenderedtheobjectcanbetakenintothejuryroomforthejurytoinspect.
o View–Ifthephysicalobjectcannotbetransportedintothecourtthetriercangolookatit.§ S54:Viewsareevidence.Objectscanbe‘viewed’outsidecourtiftheytoo
bigtobringtothecourtroom§ ‘View’isusedasgeneraltermfordemonstrations,experimentsand
inspections;S53.
o Demonstration(typeofview)–involvesreproductionorreconstructionoftheoriginalevent.
§ Canbeincourtoroutofcourtaspartoftheview.
o Generating/Experiments(typeofview)–experimentsinvolvethegenerationofnewevidence
§ Theengineermightconductanexperimenttotesttheco-efficienyoffrictionofaparticularsetofstairstoseehowslipperytheyareandwhetherornottheyarewithinsafetystandards.
§ Eitherinoroutofcourt.WHEN&HOWCANAVIEWTAKEPLACE?OUTOFCOURTINFRONTOFJURY:S53
• S53onlyappliestoOUTOFCOURTdemonstrations,experimentsorinspections:EvansvTheQueenHCA
• Attendaview:Realevidencethatisnotappropriatetobebroughtintocourt–thecourtcangototheevidence.E.g.aview;whenthejudgeandjurygoouttoviewthesceneofacrime.
• S53requiresthatanapplicationbemadetothecourtforanorderthatademonstration,experimentorinspectionbemade.
• S53(3):setsoutthematterstowhichthecourtmusthaveregardindeterminingwhetherornottomakeanorderforademonstration,inspectionorexperimentmaybeheld:
a. Whetherthepartieswillbepresentb. Whethertheviewwillassistinresolvingissuesoffactorwillassistinunderstandingthe
evidencec. Thedangerthattheviewmaybeunfairlyprejudicialormisleadingorconfusing,ormay
resultinanunduewasteofthecourtstimed. Theextenttowhichademonstrationwillproperlyreproducetherelevantconducte. Theextenttowhichtheplaceorthingtobeinspectedhasmateriallyaltered
Conductademonstration/inspection
• Inthecaseofademonstration–theextenttowhichthedemonstrationwillproperlyreproducethecontentoreventtobedemonstrated.
• Inthecaseofaninspection–theextenttowhichtheplaceorthingtobeinspectedhasmateriallyaltered.
• S53(4):prohibitsthecourt,includingjury,fromconductingexperimentsduringdeliberations.• S53(5):permitsthejurytoinspectanexhibitduringdeliberations.
EXPERIMENTSMADEOUTOFCOURTNOTINTHEPRESENCEOFJUDGEORJURY
• RULE:S53doesnotapplytoexperimentsconductedbyexpertswhicharenotinthepresenceofthejudgeorjury.
§ Doesprovideguidanceastotheuseandadmissibilityoftheevidence.
• Juryisonlygoingtohavedirectaccesstoitifittakesplaceincourt.Mostexperimentstakeplaceoutsideofcourtpriortotrial.
• DPPvFarquharson(No.2)2010VSC210EXPERIMENTSINTHEJURYROOMPROHIBITEDDURINGDELIBERATION
• RULE:S53(4)prohibitsthecourt(includingthejury)fromconductingexperimentsinthecourseofitsdeliberations.ReinstatementofthecommonlawexpressedinKozulvR.
• Whentheexperimentsconductedbythejurygobeyondamereexaminationandtestingoftheevidence,andbecomeameansofsupplyingnewevidence,theybecomeimpermissible:KozulvR.
TOPIC5:RELEVANCEANDADMISSIBILITYTEMPLATE
ISTHEEVIDENCEADMISSIBLE?• Evidencemustberelevantinordertobeadmissible.
STEP1:ISTHEEVIDENCERELEVANT?
• RULE:o Ifevidenceisrelevantitisadmissible:S56(1)o Ifevidenceisnotrelevantitisnotadmissible:S56(2)
• Ifevidencehasabearingontheissuesinconsiderationofreachingthedecision,itwillberelevant.
• DEFINITIONOF‘RELEVANTEVIDENCE’S55:1) Evidencethatisrelevantinaproceedingisevidencethat,ifitwereaccepted,couldrationally
affect(directlyorindirectly)theassessmentoftheprobabilityoftheexistenceofafactinissueintheproceeding.
2) Inparticular,evidenceisnotirrelevantonlybecauseitrelatesonlyto-a) thecredibilityofawitness;orb) theadmissibilityofotherevidence;orc) afailuretoadduceevidence.
• TEST:Consideredintermsofrelevancetothecase(theelementsoftheoffence,orcauseofaction).• Evidenceisrelevantifithassomerationalconnectiontoafactinissue,inthesensethatitcould
increaseordecreasetheprobabilityofthatfact’sexistence:SmithvR
• Inferencesastorelevance:s58o WhenaquestionarisesastotherelevanceofadocumentorathingSection58permitsthe
courttoexaminethedocumentorthingandtodrawanyreasonableinferencefromitincludinganinferenceastoitsauthenticityoridentity.
• Provisionalrelevance:s57o Relevanceofevidencewilldependonthecourtbeingsatisfiedofanotherfact.o E.g.therelevanceofonewitness’sevidencemayoftendependontheevidenceofawitness
whoistolatergiveevidence.o S57providesthatifthequestionwhetherevidenceisrelevantdependsonthecourtmaking
anotherfinding,thecourtmayfindthattheevidenceisrelevantifitisreasonablyopentomakethatfinding,ormayfinditrelevantsubjecttofurtherevidencebeingadmittedatalaterstageoftheproceedingsthatwillmakeitreasonablyopentomakethatfinding.
o TEST:IfevidenceisadmittedprovisionallyunderS57,itmustbeshownultimatelytoberelevantinordertobeadmissible.
STEP2:IFEVIDENCEISRELEVANT,DOANYEXLUSIONARYRULESAPPLY?
• Ifevidenceisrelevant,itisadmissibleUNLESSoneoftheEXCLUSIONRULESINCHAPTER3apply(e.g.hearsay)
STEP3:IFEXCLUSIONRULESAPPLY,ARETHEREANYEXCEPTIONSTOTHIS?• Somerulesofadmissibilityprovideforexceptionstoexclusionrules
o Somehearsayisconsideredsufficientlyreliableo Somerulesoperatetolimittheuseofcertainevidencethatcanbeput.
STEP4:IFEVIDENCEISRELEVANT,WILLJUDGEAPPLYJUDICIALDISCRETION?• EvenifevidenceisrelevantandadmissibleJUDICIALDISCRETIONStoexcludeevidenceonthe
groundsofpolicyorfairnessprinciplesexistastowhethertheevidenceshouldbeallowed.
FINALLY,IFEVIDENCEISADMISSIBLE,ISITUBJECTTOJURYWARNING?• Someevidencedespitebeingadmissiblemaybesubjecttojurywarning.
o NOTRULESOFADMISSIBILITY–operateAFTERtheevidenceisdeemedadmissible.
TOPIC6:HEARSAYTEMPLATES59operatesbywayof:
1. Determinetheissuesinthetrialwhichleadustorelevance,then(Relevancetemplate)2. Determinewhatconstituteshearsay–ifwefindthatitishearsay,then3. Itisexcludedunlessthereisanexceptiontotheexclusionaryrule.
ISSUE:ISTHESTATEMENTS59HEARSAY?(andthereforexcluded)
• RULE:Generally,hearsayevidenceisnotpermitted.Theruleagainsthearsaypredominatelyexcludesstatementsorrepresentationsmadeoutofcourtaboutfactsormattersinissue.Theyareconsideredtobeunreliable.
• S59HearsayRule–providesthatevidencethatconstituteshearsay–q beingapreviousoutofcourtrepresentationq madebyapersontoprovetheexistenceofafactq intendedtobeassertedisexcludedasevidence.
ELEMENT1/2:HEARSAYEVIDENCEMUSTBEPREVIOUSREPRESENTATIONMADEBYAPERSON
q Identifytherepresentationinordertoprovethefactthatwasintendedwasasserted.q Isitapreviousrepresentation?(eitherorally,inwriting,expressly,impliedlyorbyconduct)?
o Representationdefined(indictionary)toinclude:a) ‘AnEXPRESSorIMPLIEDrepresentation(whetheroralorinwriting);orb) Arepresentationtobeinferredfromconduct;or
- Silenceornonactionmayconstitutearepresentationc) Arepresentationnotintendedbyitsmakertobecommunicatedtoorseenby
anotherperson;ord) Arepresentationthatforanyreasonisnotcommunicated.’
q Therepresentationmustbemadeoutofcourtq Therepresentationmustbemadebyaperson
o Cantbemachine
ELEMENT2/2:THEFACTMUSTBEINTENDEDTOBEASSERTED• RULE:Implied(orexpress)statementmustbeintendedtofallunderexclusionaryrule(and
thereforeexcluded):S59o Iftenderedtoprovetruthofwhatitasserts=hearsayo IfthestatementistenderedfortheirtruthtoprovethefactthisisNOThearsay
• TEST:o Testofintentionisobjective.Actsays-‘itcanreasonablybesupposed’o Ask:doesitreasonablelooklikethatpersonintendedtomakethatstatement?o Ifobvious,thenintended.o Whatisthepurposeoftheevidence?Isittoproveafactassertedinit?MUSTBE
INTENDED.o Wasthefactintendedtobeassertedbyapersonwhomadetherepresentation?
• IntentionrequirementandIMPLIEDrepresentations
o ‘Itisaprevious,impliedrepresentationthatisusedforthepurposeofprovingthefactintendedtobeassertedbytheimpliedrepresentation’:s59
o Pollotcase–§ “That’sPollotonthephone”=intendedimplied-CallerintendedtoidentifyPollot
asthepersonontheotherendofthephone.o WaltonvR;
§ “HelloDaddy”=StatementdoesnotEXPLICITLYassertanyfactasitisasimplyagreeting,BUTIMPLICITYassertsafact‘mydadisonthephone’.
§ BUTwasitINTENDEDtoidentifyasdad?NO.
§ impliedassertionWASNOTINTENDEDtoidentifycallerasdad,itwasjustagreeting,thereforenothearsay,andsoadmissible.
• Intentionrequirementandexpressrepresentations
o RvLee:Theintentionofthemakeroftherepresentationisnecessaryinrelationtoimpliedassertions,andusefulinrelationtoexpressassertions
DOANYEXCEPTIONSAPPLYTOTHEHEARSAYRULE?(andthereformakeevidenceadmissible)• Exceptionsmeanthathearsaymaybeadmissibleif…..
1. ItisevidencethatisrelevantforaNON-HEARSAYPURPOSE:s60
o EffectofS60–oncetherepresentationisadmittedforitsnonhearsaypurpose,itisadmissiblealsoforitshearsaypurpose.
o S60willapplytoevidencethathasdualrelevancesuchaspriorinconsistentstatementsandtoevidenceformingthebasisofanexpertsopinion,asonceadmittedforitsnonhearsaypurpose,S60willallowthemtobeusedasevidenceofwhattheyassert
2. FIRSTHANDHEARSAYo DEFINITION:Firsthandrepresentationisdefinedasa‘previousrepresentationthatwas
madebyapersonwhohadpersonalknowledgeofanassertedfact’:S62(1)o RULE:Firsthandhearsaymustcomewithperson’sknowledgeofthefact.Anexceptionto
hearsayexclusionaryruleiscreatedunderS62(ie,iffirsthandsatisfied,thenadmissible).o Firsthand=Someoneperceivedtheeventandtoldsomeoneelseandoneofthosetwoare
givingevidence.“hesaid,shesaid…”o TESTFOR‘PERSONALKNOWLEDGE’:Itisenoughifcanbereasonablysupposedthatthe
makerhadpersonalknowledge:RvVincent
Þ STEP1:DETERIMINEIFCIVILORCRIMINALPROCEEEDINGÞ STEP2:DETERMINEAVAILABILITY
Meaningof‘unavailabilityofpersons’;Clause4oftheDictionary:Thelistisexhaustive.
a) Thepersonisdeadb) Thepersonisnotcompetenttogiveevidencec) Wouldbeunlawfulforthepersontogiveevidenced) ProvisionoftheActprohibitstheevidencebeinggivene) Reasonablestepshavebeentakentofindthepersongivingevidencewithno
success.f) Reasonablestepstakentofindthepersonandcompelthepartytogiveevidenceg) Personismentallyorphysicallyunabletogiveevidence.
2A.FIRSTHANDHEARSAYEXCEPTIONINCIVILPROCEEDINGSs63-64
Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepisNOTAVAILABLE…
o S63appliesincivilcaseswherethemakeroffirsthandhearsayisNOTAVAILABLEtogiveevidence.Providesthatarepresentationcanbegivenby
§ apersonwhoperceivedtherepresentationwasbeingmadeor§ Adocumentcontainingarepresentation.
o Noticemustbegiventotheotherpartythatthemakerisnotavailable:s67,DeRosevSA
Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepISAVAILABLE…
o EvenwherethemakeroftherepresentationisAVAILABLEtogiveevidence,S64willallowhearsayevidencetobeusedinsteadofcallingtheperson,ifitwouldcauseundueexpense,delayorunreasonablypracticabletocalltheperson.
o Evidencecanbegiveneitherby- Someonewhoperceivedtherepresentationbeingmade,or
- Documentevidenceoftherepresentation.o S64(3)providesthatifapersonISAVAILABLEANDISTOBECALLEDthenhearsay
maystillbegiveneitherbythemakerorthepersonwhoperceivedtherepresentationtobemade.
2B.FIRSTHANDHEARSAYEXCEPTIONINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSs65-66DocumentaryEvidenceIsNotPermitted(MustBeOral)
Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepisNOTAVAILABLE…
o S65allowsforfirsthandhearsaytobegivenincriminalcaseswherethemakerofthepreviousrepresentationisnotavailabletogiveevidence.
o Noticemustbegiventotheotherpartythatthemakerisnotavailable:s67,DeRosevSA
Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepISAVAILABLE…
o S66:IfthemakeroftherepresentationisAVAILABLEthereisnoprovisionfornotcallingthewitnessandthusrelyingonthehearsayruleinstead.
o Ie,theymustbecalledfortheperson’sevidencetobeadmissible.o S66(2)makesadmissibleevidenceofthehearsayif‘freshinthememory’.o Requirement:willonlybeadmissibleif,whentherepresentationwasmade,the
occurrenceoftheassertedfactwas‘freshinthememory’ofthepersonwhomadetherepresentation:s66(2A),GrahamvTheQueen(1998)
o Whatis‘freshinthememory’?S66(2A):courtmaytakeintoaccountallmattersitconsideredarerelevant,tothequestion,including(RvXY):
§ Natureoftheeventconcerned§ Ageandhealthoftheperson§ Periodoftimebetweentheoccurrenceoftheassertedfactandthemaking
oftherepresentation.o Freshinthememorydoesn'thavetoberecentorimmediate:Graham
3. MoreREMOTEFORMSOFHEARSAY:s67-75(Notfirsthandhearsay)S69BusinessrecordsS70TagsandLabelsS71ElectronicCommunicationsS72AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderTraditionalLawsandCustoms
NatureofPreviousRepresentation> =FormofFirstHandHearsayAllowedRepresentationsforwhichsomeguaranteeofreliabilityexists–S65(2)
a) Madeunderadutyb) Madeshortlyafterandunlikely
tohavebeenfabricatedc) Highlyprobablyreliabled) Againsttheinterestsofthe
maker;S65(7)
o Oralevidencefromapersonwhowitnessedthemakingoftherepresentation
o Documentaryevidenceisnotsufficient;ConwayvR
Representationsalreadygiveninevidenceinpriorproceedings(subjecttothemakerhavingbeencross-examinedorareasonablyopportunityforcross-examination);S65(3)-(6)
o Documentaryevidenceintheformoftranscriptorrecording.
o Presumablyalsooralevidencefromapersonwhowitnessedthemakingoftherepresentation.
Representationsadducedbyanaccused;S65(8)and(9)
o Documentaryevidenceo Oralevidencefromapersonwho
witnessedthemakingoftherepresentation.
TOPIC7:OPINIONEVIDENCETEMPLATEISSUE:ISTHEOPINIONADMISSIBLE?
• RULE:primafacieopinionsareNOTADMISSIBLE(subjecttoexceptionsandexclusions):S76• Theactdoesnotdefinethetermopinion.• EvidenceofPreviousJudgementsandConvictions-notadmissiblebecauseitsopinion:A
determinationbyacourtisineffecttheexpressionofanopinionbyacourt,whetherbyjudgeorjury,thereforenotadmissible:s91
STEP1:ISTHESTATEMENTANOPNION?
• Distinctionbetweenfactsandopiniono Iftheaccusedwaswellknowntotheidentifyingwitnessbeforethecrimethentheir
identificationismorelikelytobetreatedasamatteroffactratherthanopinion.o Iftheidentifyingwitnessdidnotknowtheaccusedbeforethecrime,thentheir
identificationwillbetreatedasopinion.
STEP2:DOANYEXCEPTIONSAPPLY?(thereformakingtheopinionevidenceadmissible)
A. EXCEPTION:EVIDENCERELEVANTOTHERWISETHANASOPINIONEVIDENCES77• s77statesthat‘theopinionruledoesnotapplytoevidenceofanopinionthatisadmitted
becauseitisrelevantforapurposeotherthanproofoftheexistenceofafactabouttheexistenceofwhichtheopinionwasexpressed.
B. LAYPERSONOPINIONEXCEPTION:S78
• RULE:opinionsoflaywitnessescanbeadmissible:S78.2elementsmustbesatisfiedbeforetheopinionwillbeadmittedasanexceptionunderthisprovision
• REQUIREMENTS:1. Theopinionisbaseduponwitnesses’ownobservations:S78(a)2. Theopinionis‘necessary’inordertounderstandthewitness’stestimony:S78(b)
• Whatis‘NECESSARY’foropinion;HaryvMerrill§ Identityofindividuals,handwriting,orotherthings§ Apparentageofperson§ Speedatwhichtheobjectismoving§ Conditionorstateofsomethingsuchasweatherorroad§ Person’semotionalstateoranger.§ Person’sphysicalcondition§ CharacterevidencewhichisexemptedfromopinionruleunderS110.§ Listisnotexhaustive§ Whereitisdifficultorimpracticaltoseparatewitness’sobservationsfromtheir
opinion,thentheopinionisnecessarytoobtainadequateaccountorunderstanding.
• Whereitisdifficulttoseparateawitness’sobservationsfromhisopinion• Itshouldbenotedhoweverthatalthoughanopinionmaysatisfys78itmuststillsurvivethe
discretionofthetrialjudgebeforeitcouldbeadmitted.Ie,dtillsubjecttodiscretionunderS137:RvVanDyk
C. EXPERTWITNESSOPINIONEXCEPTIONS79
• RULE:Anexpert’sopinionmaybeadmissibleifitsatisfiestherequirementsofs79(1),(which,ifchallenged,willrequireavoirdirehearingaccordingtos189oftheAct.)
• S79(1)REQUIREMENTS:q Theexpertmustpossess‘specialisedknowledge’
§ NotdefinedintheAct.Whetheropinionisbasedonspecialisedknowledgeisaquestionoffact;ASICvAlder:
§ Charteredaccountantwithexperienceinanumberofprivateandpubliccompaniesofferingevidenceofwhatisexpectedofadiligentdirector=specialisedknowledge.
§ Charteredaccountantwithnosuchexperience=notspecialised.
q Thespecialisedknowledgemustbebasedontheexperts‘training,studyorexperience’
§ Awitnessmayqualifyasanexpertonthebasisofeithero ‘training,educationorexperience’
§ Ifopinionisbasedsolelyonexperience,=adhocexpertanditisnecessarytoestablishnatureandextentofexperiencetoestablishspecialisedknowledge.
q Theexpertsopinionmustbe‘whollyorsubstantially’basedontheirspecialised
knowledge’.§ Canonlygiveopinionevidenceonareasofexpertiseandcannotstray
intootherareas.§ Mustdetermine:
1. Whatistheopinionofferedbytheexpert2. Isthatopinionbasedonspecialknowledgefromanareaof
expertise.§ Ifmultipleopinionsareofferedtheneachmustbebasedonthe
specialisedknowledgeoftheexpert
q BasisRulerequirement(expertmustprovidefactsonwhichopinionisbased)§ NOTE-S79doesnotexpresslyadoptastrictbasisrule,asamatterof
practicality,theexpertwillnormallyberequiredtosetoutthefactsuponwhichtheopinionisbasedinordertoallowthecourttoassesswhethertheopinionsatisfiestherequirementsofS79:RamsayvWatson
STEP3:IF1OFTHEEXCEPTIONSAPPLY(therebymakingtheopinionadmissible)DOANYDISCRETIONARYEXCLUSIONSAPPLY(S135orS137)?(therebymakingtheopinioninadmissible)
• OpinionsthatareadmissibleasanexceptionunderS78(laypersonexception)orS79(expert
witness)maybeexcludedbythetrialjudgeintheexerciseoftheirdiscretionarypowers.• Courtcanusediscretiontoexcludeopinionsfromeitherlayorexpertwitnessesiftheyare:
o highlyprejudicialtowardsanaccusedordefendant• insuchcircumstancesitwillbepossibletoarguethattheprobativevalueoftheopinionis
outweighedbyitsprejudicialeffectunderS135orS137.
TOPIC8:ADMISSIONSTEMPLATE
ISSUE:ISTHEADMISSIONADMISSIBLE?RULE:admissionsareprimafacieadmissible(asanexceptiontothehearsayandopinionrules;s81.)
• S81providesthatadmissionsareexceptionstothehearsayandopinionevidencerules.(1)Hearsayruleandopinionruledonotapplytoevidenceofadmissions(2)Hearsayruleandopinionruledonotapplytoevidenceofapreviousrepresentation.
§ Thatwasmadeinrelationtoanadmissionatthetimetheadmissionwasmade,orshortlybeforeorafterthattime,and
§ Towhichitisreasonablynecessarytoreferinordertounderstandtheadmission.
STEP1:ISTHESTATEMENTANADMISSION?• Highlightadmissionanddefinewhyitisanadmission• Istheassertionmadeagainstone’sowninterests?• Whatareadmissions?
o DefinedinDictionaryasapreviousrepresentation…whichisadversetotheperson’sinterestintheoutcomeoftheproceeding.
o Broaddefinitionof‘admission’=bothadmissionsasmerestatementsagainstinterestandfullconfessionstocriminaloffences.
o Examplesofpotentialadmissions:o Expressadmission:“Iwasspeeding”o Expressadmissionrelevanttolitigationinnegligence:“Ishouldhavebeenmorecareful”o Impliedadmission:“Ididn’tmeantohurther”o Impliedadmissionbyconduct:runningawayinresponsetothewords“Stop,Police”,ora
failuretodenyanallegationwhenitwouldbereasonabletoexpectadenialo Tellinglies:EdwardsvR(1993)
STEP2:DOANYEXLUSIONSAPPLY?(thereforemakingtheadmissioninadmissible)
a) GENERALRULESOFEXCLUSION(CIVIL&CRIMINAL)
Þ S82Exclusionofevidenceofadmissionsthatisnotfirsthand
o RULE:admissibleadmissionmustbefirsthand.Ifnot,ieissecondhandorremote,itwillbeexcludedunderthehearsayexclusionaryrule:S82
o S82onlyoperatestorestricttheapplicationofS81tofirsthandadmissions.
Þ S83Admissionsnotadmissibleagainstthirdpartieso theadmissioncanonlybeusedandadmissibleagainstthepersonwhomadeit,nota
thirdparty:S83o Exceptionisifathirdpartyconsents;S83(2).
Þ S84Admissionsinfluencedbyviolenceandotherconducto RULE:s84-admissionsnotadmissibleifinfluencedby
(a) violent,oppressive,inhumanordegradingconduct,whethertowardsapersonwhomadetheadmissionortowardsanother.
(b) threatorconductofthatkind.
o Requirement:onlyappliesifthepartyhasraisedtheissueabouttheadmissionbeingsoinfluencedbyproscribedconduct.
o BurdenOfProof:Onceraised,theburdenfallsonthepartyseekingtoadducetheadmissiontoovercomethethresholdofadmissibility.Partymustproveonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatitwasnotinfluenced
o Whatisoppressiveconduct?RvYeZhang:threatofphysicalviolenceifactnotdone
b) SPECIFICRULESOFEXCLUSION(CRIMINALONLY):Þ S85Admissionsbycriminaldefendantsinthepresenceofinvestigators
o S85,supplementsS84,andappliesonlyincriminalcasesandonlywheretheadmissionwasmadebyadefendant‘inthepresenceofinvestigatingofficials’.
o RULE:S85(2):anadmissionwillnotbeadmissibleunlessitwasmadeincircumstancesthatmakeitunlikelythatitstruthwasadverselyaffected.
o TEST:wouldthecircumstancesinfactadverselyaffectthetruthoftheadmission.o Burdenofproof:theprosecutiono Ifthatburdenisnotdischargedtheadmissionwillbeinadmissibleo ‘Inthepresence’:Itisnotnecessarythattheadmissionbemadewhileapersonisin
custodyorunderarrest,orinapolicestationNichollsvR(2005)o Circumstancesthatmayadverselyaffectthetruth:S85(3)-circumstancesthatthe
courtmusttakeintoaccountindeterminingwhetherthetestins85(2)hasbeensatisfied.§ Thisincludes;Thepersonalcharacteristicsofthedefendant,age,personality,
education,mentalorphysicaldisability,andthemannerofquestioning,includinganythreats,promisesorinducements.Listisnonexhaustive.
o RvDonnelly;depressedmentalstatedidnotaffecttheaccused’sadmissiontohiswife’smurder.
o RvBraun;defendantadmittedtostartingafire,howeverhadhistoryofattentionseekingbehaviourandmentalconditions=truthadverselyaffected
Þ S86Exclusionofrecordsoforalquestioningandmandatoryrecordingofadmissions
o S86(2)excludesadocumentprovidedonbehalfoftheofficial,unlessaccusedacknowledgesthattherecordistrue,bysigning,initiallingorotherwisemarkingthedocument:s86(3).
o However,thisisonlyiftheunsigneddocumentisusedtoproveanadmission.o Note:Audioandvideorecordingsandtranscriptsaren’tdocumentsforthepurposes
ofs86:s86(4)o Policemaynonethelessgiveoralevidenceofanallegedadmissionassumingtobe
excludedbymandatoryrecordingrequirements.
Þ S89SilenceAPersonwhobelievesonreasonablegroundsthattheyaresuspectofhavingbeenpartytoanoffenceisentitledtoremainsilentwhenquestionedbyanypersoninauthorityabouttheoccurrenceoftheoffence:PettyvR
o RULE:noadverseinferencecanbedrawnagainstanaccusedpersonbyreasonoftheirfailuretoanswerquestionsorprovideinformation:S89,PettyvR
o S89operatesasprohibitiononcertaininferencesandasanexclusionaryrule.o Ifapartyhasremainedsilentwhenquestionedduringanofficialinvestigation,that
factcannotbeheldagainsthiminanyway.o Evidencethatapartyfailedtoanswerquestionsoranswered‘nocomment’willoften
beexcludedbecauseitisnotrelevant.o Whatinferencescanwedrawfromsilence?
§ S89(4)Inthissection,inferenceincludes- Aninferenceofconsciousnessofguilt- Inferencerelevanttoaparty’scredibility.
o Failuretomentionadefencelaterreliedon
§ RULE:Noadverseinferencecanbedrawnfromtheearlierfailuretomentionadefence.SanchezvR[2009]
c) DISCRETIONTOEXCLUDEADMISSIONS:
• NOTE:otherdiscretionsstillapply;thisisjustaspecificonetoadmissions• Ifprimafacieadmissible,courtmayexcludeadmissionsincircumstancesof
1. UNFAIRNESS(s90,onlyappliestoadmissions)orEgofunfaircircumstances:
- Theunreliabilityoftheadmission:RvSwaffield;PavicvR(1998)- Forensicdisadvantage:FostervR(1993)- Improperpoliceconduct:VanDerMeervR(1988)- Infringementofdefendant’srights:FostervR(1993)
2. wheretheyhavebeenIMPROPERLYOBTAINED(s138(2),appliestoallevidence).
- Thebalancingexerciseinvolvesaweighingoftwovalues;o Thevalueofadmittingevidencethatwillhelptoconvicttheguiltyo Thevalueofdiscouragingornotcondoningpolicemisconduct.
d) JUDICIALWARNINGS
• withrespecttopotentiallyunreliableevidence,includingadmissions.
TOPIC9:TENDENCYANDCOINCIDENCEEVIDENCETEMPLATEISTHESIMILARFACTEVIDENCE(tendencyorcoincidence)ADMISSIBLE?
• RULE:tendencyandcoincidenceevidenceisinadmissibleunlesscertainconditionsaremetunderS97andS98oftheAct.
ISTHEFACTSIMILAREEVIDENCE?
• DEFINITION:Similarfactevidenceisevidencethatonapreviousoccasionapersonactedinasimilarmannertothatnowallegedincourt.
• 2typesofsimilarfactevidence:1. S97Tendency:
a. evidenceofcharacter,reputation,conductortendencyofapersonthatistenderedtoprovethatapersonhastendencytoactinaparticularway,orhaveaparticularstateofmind.
b. Eg.evidenceofthebehaviourordispositionofapersonthatisadducedtoshowthatapersonhasatendencytoactinaparticularway.
2. S98Coincidence:
a. theoccurrenceoftwoormoreeventswhichistenderedtoprove,havingregardtoanysimilaritiesinevents,itisimprobablethateventsoccurredcoincidently.
• Noticeofintentiontoadducetendencyevidencemustbegiveninwritinghowever,thisnoticecan
bewaivedasperS100.
IDENTIFYIFCIVILORCRIMINALCASECIVILCASES
• RULE:Tendencyandcoincidenceevidencearenotadmissible,unlesstheevidencewill,eitherbyitselforhavingregardtootherevidence,havesignificantprobativevalue.
• (ie,ifaboveissatisfied,thenwillbeadmissible)• CanstillbeexcludedunderS135discretion.• TEST:Whatisrequiredifevidenceistoadmissibleisthatitcouldrationallyaffecttheassessmentof
theprobabilityoftherelevantfactinissuetoasignificantextent:ZaknicvSvelteCorporation;
CRIMINALCASES• RULE:Thetendencyandcoincidenceevidenceisnotadmissibleunless
q ithasSignificantProbativeValueandq itsubstantiallyoutweighsanyprejudicialeffectitmayhaveontheaccused(S101)(ie,ifaboveissatisfied,thenwillbeadmissible,ifnottheninadimissible)
• Similarfactevidencecanbeintheformofpriorconvictions,unprovenallegationsorcanrelatetoactsthatoccurredaftertheeventthatleadtothecharge.
• ‘SignificantProbativeValue’:meansmorethanrelevancebutlessthana‘substantial’degreeofrelevance,andthatitmeansimportantorofconsequence-thereisnoneedforittoestablishastrikingpatternorsimilaritybetweenthechargeactandthedisputeevidence:RvPWD[2010]NSWCCA
• Testfor‘PrejudicialEffect’:whetherthereisariskofanunfairtrial:RvPWD[2010]NSWCCA
o Ifthereisarealriskthattheadmissionofsuchevidencemayprejudicethefairtrialofthecriminalcharge,theinterestsofjusticerequirethetrialjudgetomakeavaluejudgement,notmathematical.
o TheCourtstatedthatthebalancingexerciseunderS101(2)isofthesamenatureasthatunderS137discretion.
o Ifsimilarfactevidenceisadmitted,thenthereisnoscopeforittobeexcludedpursuanttotheexerciseofthediscretioninS137.
• Res98coincidence,ask:o Isitjustmerecoincidenceofdidtheaccusedhaveaspecificstateofmind??o Evidencetoshowcannotamerecoincidence.CGLvDPP2010
• Res97tendency:
o Themorespecificoftheidentifiedsimilaritythemorelikelyitistobeprobativeofatendencytoactinadistinctivewaytodoactsofadistinctivekind.(ie,morelikelytosatisfys97andbeadmissible)
o Themoregeneral,themoredifficultitistodemonstrateatendencythathassignificantprobativevalues.(ielesslikelytosatisfys97andbeadmissible)CGLvDPP2010
SimilarfactevidencewhenNOTDIRECTLYRELEVANTTOFACTINISSUE(circumstantial)
• Tendencyevidenceinregardstosomethingotherthanwhethertheaccusedisguiltyascharged.• Relationshipevidence• Largebulkappearsinsexualoffencecases• Theparadigmcaseinwhichrelationshipevidenceisadmittediswhentheaccusedischargedwitha
sexualoffenceandthereisanallegedhistoryofsexualmisconductbytheaccusedtowardsthecomplainant.
• Insuchcircumstances,theunchargedactsareadmittedtoestablishasexualrelationshipbetweentheparties.
• RvBeserick
TOPIC10:CREDIBILITYANDCHARACTEREVIDENCETEMPLATETRIGGER:DOESTHEEVIDENCERELATETOTHEACCUSED’SCREDIBILITY?
• Ie,evidencefromawitnesspurportingthattheaccusedhaspooreyesightorabadmemory• Characterevidenceregardingtheinclinationofapersontothinkorbehaveinacertainmanner• Thingsthatrelatetobadconducte.g.evidencethatapersonisdishonestetv
ISTHEEVIDENCEONLYRELEVANTFORTHEPURPOSESOFCREDIBILITY?
• S101Adefinescredibility–evidencerelevanttothecredibilityofthewitnessorpersonthat‘isrelevantonlybecauseitaffectstheassessmentofthecredibilityofthewitnessorperson’.
• Identifythepersontowhomthecredibilityisrelated§ S102inregardstocredibilityofwitness
• Includingwitness’sabilitytoobserveorrememberfactsandeventsaboutwhichgivingevidence
§ S108Ainregardstocredibilityofrepresentation(nonwitness)• Includesperson’sabilitytoobserveorrememberfactsandeventsaboutwhichthe
personmadetherepresentation
• Evidencemustsolelyrelatetocredibilitytoapplyunderhere.• Credibilityisnotrelatedtofactinissue,butimpactsonwhetherornotevidenceshouldbe
accepted.ISTHECREDIBILITYEVIDENCEADMISSIBLE?Primafacie,no.
• RULE:Primafacie,thegeneralruleisthatcredibilityevidenceisnotadmissible:S102(appliestowitnesses)orS108A(appliestopeoplewhoarenotwitnesses)
ISSUE:DOANYEXCEPTIONSAPPLY?(thereforemakingthecredibilityevidenceadmissible)A. EXCPETIONINCROSS-EXAMINATIONS103(ORS108A)
• RULE:CredibilityevidencecanbeadmissibleiftheevidencecouldSUBSTANTIALLYAFFECTtheassessmentofthecredibilityofthewitness
• Thecourtistotakemaytakeintoconsiderationaspectsinregardstofailingobligationtotellthetruth.
• Applieswherepersonpreviouslyliedunderoath• Forevidenceto‘Substantiallyaffect’:
o itmusthavehadthepotentialtohavearealbearingupontheassessmentoftheappellant’scredibility,andparticularlytotheappellant’scredibilityinrelationtotheevidencehehadgiven,orwouldgiveattrial:RvEl–Azzi
o itcould‘rationallyaffect’theassessmentoftheircreditorhasthepotentialtohavea‘realbearing’ontheircredibility:RvEl–Azzi
B. SPECIALEXCEPTIONFORPRIORCONVICTIONSOFTHEACCUSED(ONLYFORACCUSED)s104
• S104onlyappliesincriminalproceedingsinadditiontoS103.• Thus,forS104tooperate,itmustbeestablishedthattheevidenceinquestioncould
substantiallyaffecttheassessmentofthecredibilityofthedefendant.• S104appliesincircumstanceswherethedefendanthaselectedtogiveevidence.• RULE:S104(2):AccusedmustNOTbecross-examinedaboutamatterthatisrelevanttothe
assessmentofthecredibilityoftheaccusedUNLESSCOURTGIVESLEAVE
• Despites104(2),S104(3)providesthattheaccusedcanbecrossexaminedwithoutleavebeingrequiredofthecourtwheretheevidencecouldsubstantiallyaffecttheircreditabilityandthematterrelatesto:o Whethertheaccusedisbiasedo Hasamotivetobeuntruthfulo Hasmadeapriorinconsistentstatemento Isunabletobeawareof,oro Recallmatterstowhichtheirevidencerelates.
C. FINALITYRULEEXCEPTION(ifcrossexaminerisnothappywithanswer,usuallycan’tlead,butcando
soifaskforleavetocontradictanswer)• Lookatwherecross-examinerwantstoleadevidenceafternotgettingresponsetheywant• Ifthecrossexaminerdoesnotgettheanswerdesired,theycannotleadevidencetocontradict
theresponse.• RULE:Inordertoleadevidence,leaveofthecourtisusuallyrequired,howeveraspers106(2)
leaveisnotrequiredwherethereis:§ Biasorhasmotivetobeuntruthful§ Priorconviction§ Priorinconsistentstatement§ Unabletobeawareofmatterstowhichtheirevidencerelates
Ø NotcapableofgivingtrueaccountbecauseofmentalinfirmityØ Wherethisisthecasethencanleadevidence(medical)inrebuttal
§ Madefalserepresentationwhileunderobligationtothetellthetruth• Noteifneitherthencanjustgostraighttoleaveaspect
D. RE-ESTABLISHINGCREDIBILITYDURINGRE-EXAMINATION
• RULE:S108(1)statesthatthecredibilityruledoesnotapplytoevidenceadducedinre-examinationofawitness
• Application:Wherethecredibilityofawitnesshasbeendamagedduringcross-examination,S108providesanopportunityforthewitness’scredibilitytoberestoredduringre-examination(thereforemakingcredibilityevidenceadmissible).
• S39requirement:Thiscanonlyariseincircumstanceswherethewitnesshasbeencrossexaminedaboutcredibility(oneoftheaboveexceptionsapplied)andthereisaneedtoclarifythewitnessesresponse.
• 2furtherexceptionsunders108(3):IFADDUCINGPRIORCONSISTENTSTATEMENT
o S108(3)wherepriorconsistentstatementbeingadducedcredibilityevidenceisadmissibleif
Ø EvidenceastoapriorinconsistentstatementhasbeenadmittedORØ Itisorwillbesuggestedthatwitnesstolduntruth
o Leavehoweverisrequired
E. GOODCHARACTEREVIDENCEBYACCUSEDs110• Lookatwhereaccusedisleadingcharacterevidence• RULE:theaccusedcanleadevidencethroughtheirowntestimonyorthatofothersthatthey
areofgoodcharacter:S110o Thisalsoallowstheprosecutiontoleadrebuttalevidencetoestablishnotofgood
character• S110requiresproofofasubjectiveintenttoraisegoodcharacterbeforeitcouldbeheldthat
evidencehadbeen‘adducedbyadefendanttoprovegoodcharacter’;RvSkaf
• AsperS112leaveofthecourtisrequiredforCROSS-EXAMINATIONinregardstogoodcharacter(seeconsiderationsunderS192)
F. CREDIBILITYEVIDENCEGIVENBYEXPERTSONCREDIBILITYs108C
• 108Canexceptiontogivingofcredibilityevidenceexistswhereanexpertgivesevidence.• S108Cexpresslystatesthattheareasofexpertisethatcanqualifyawitnessinthisregard
includespecialisedknowledgeofchilddevelopmentandchildbehaviour,includingtheimpactofabuseonchildren.
• S108Cisofparticularrelevanceinchildsexoffenceswherethewitnessisattackedonthebasisofaseeminglackofcoherenc
PROTECTIONTOCOMPLAINANTSINSEXUALOFFENCECASES(NOTTHATIMPORTANT)
• S341-343andS353oftheCriminalProcedureAct2009,prohibitevidenceofthereputationofthecomplaintinsexoffencematterswithrespecttochastity.o Limitationsonlyapplytocomplainants,nototherwitnesses.o Objectiveistoovercomenegativegeneralisationsthatareoftenformedaboutpeoplebased
ontheirsexualexperiences.• Actualsexualhistoryisrestricted(notabsolutelyprohibited)
§ Canbegivenwithleaveofcourt§ Canonlybegrantedwhereevidenceisofsubstantialrelevancetofactsinissueoris
apropermatterforcrossastocredibility§ S352statesthatwillonlybepropermatterforcreditwhereitislikelytomaterially
impairconfidenceinreliabilityofevidenceofthecomplainant• Mustbestatedthathistorydoesnotsupportaninferencethatcomplainantismorelikelyto
haveconsentedtosexualactivitytowhichchargerelates
TOPIC13:PRIVILEGESTEMPLATE
ISTHECOMMUNICATIONPRIVILEGED?• RULE:Onceprotectedbytheprivilegethecommunicationordocumentcannotbeadducedincourt
asevidenceiftheclientobjectstoitsadmission.
• S132andS134providethatprivilegedinformationisprotectedasthecourtisimposedwiththeobligationtosatisfyitselfthatapartyisawareofarighttoclaimprivilegeandmustdisregardwrongfullyadmittedevidenceprotectedbyaprivilege.
• UnderS132thecourtmustbesatisfiedthatapartywhohasarighttoclaimaprivilegeisawareofthatright.
o S131Aprovidesthatthecourtmustdetermineanobjectiontodisclosurerequirement.o Disclosurerequirementsare:
§ Summonsorsubpoena§ Pretrialdiscovery§ Nonpartydiscovery§ Interrogatories
§ Noticetoproduce§ Requesttoproduce
document§ Searchwarrant
WHATPRIVILGEAPPLIES?
1. Clientlegalprivilege(subjecttoexceptions)
2. Privilegeagainstself-incrimination
3. Matterofstate4. Settlementnegotiations.
1 CLIENTLEGALPRIVILEGE
• RULE:Clientlegalprivilegeprotectsconfidentialinformationbetweentheclientandlawyerandpromotesfulldisclosureattheexpenseofaccesstoallrelevantevidence:BakervCampbell
• S117defines(IDENTIFYQUICKLY).Þ CLIENT,
- verybroaddefinitionandalsoincludesalawyer’semployer,thuscoveringin-houselawyers
- Noretainerisrequired;HawksfordvHawksford.
Þ CONFIDENTIALCOMMUNICATIONforthepurposesofprivilege- Communicationisnotdefined- BakervCampbell:oralorwrittenisincluded.- RvSharp;statedthatgenerallythepresenceofathirdpartyduringthecommunication
willundermineitsconfidentiality;thisisnotthecasewherethepresenceofthethirdpartycouldnotbeavoided;RvBrahamandMason.
Þ CONFIDENTIALDOCUMENT
- RULE:AffidavitsandwitnessstatementsfiledandservedinpreviouscourtproceedingsagainstapartywhoisnottherespondentinthecurrentproceedingsarenotprivilegedbecausetheylackconfidentialityunderS117.
- ACCCvCadburySchweppes
• RULE:S118andS119,bothprotectconfidentialcommunicationsbetweenclientandlawyerandconfidentialdocumentspreparedbytheclientorlawyer
§ solongasthedominantpurposeofthecommunicationordocument§ wastoobtainlegaladvice§ orprepareforanticipatedlegislation.
• Dominantpurpose:mightbemorethanonepurposeforthecommunication:EricPrestonPtyLtdv
EurozSecurities
• LEGALADVICE:s118providesthattheevidencecannotbeadducedwherethereisaconfidentialcommunicationbetweenparties,inwhichthedominantpurposeistoobtaintolegaladvice.
• LITIGATION:S119providesevidencecannotbeadducedifthecourtfindsitwouldresultindisclosureof
- Confidentialcommunicationbetweenaclientandanotherperson,orbetweenalawyeractingfortheclientandanotherperson,OR
- ThecontentsofaconfidentialdocumentthatwaspreparedForthedominantpurposeofaclientforaproceeding.
*APPLYTOFACTUALCIRCUMSTANCESINEXAM*
• THINGSTONOTE:Originalandcopiesofprivilegeddocuments
o Acopyofaprivilegeddocumentisalsoprivileged.o Alsoacopyofanoriginaldocumentthatisprivilegedcanbecomeprivilegedifcopiedfora
purposeasperS118;SendyvCth.o Anoriginaldocumentthatisnotprivilegeddoesnotbecomeprivilegedbecausethecopied
documentisprivilegedo Ifadocisnotprivileged,butthenmakeacopyofthis,thenthiscopycanbeprivileged(evenif
originalisnot)
1A.EXCEPTIONS:LOSSOFCLIENTLEGALPRIVILEGEA. S121LOSSOFCLIENTLEGALPRIVILEGEGENERALLY
• RULE:Theprivilegewillbelostwhen:o theclientorpartyhasdiedandtheevidenceisrelevanttothequestionoftheclient’sor
party’sintentionsorcompetenceinlawo iftheresultofnotadmittingtheevidencewouldbethatthecourtwouldbeprevented
fromenforcinganorderofanAustraliancourt.
B. S122–Clientcanwaivetheprivilege(throughconsentandinconsistentbehaviour)• RULE:Confidentialcommunication/documentwillloosetheprotectionofprivilegeif:
o thereisconsensualdisclosure:section122(1)oro iftheybehaveinamannerwhichisinconsistentwiththeprivilege:S122(2).
• Egofinconsistentbehaviours122(3)(a) clientorpartyknowinglyorvoluntarilydisclosedthesubstanceoftheevidenceto
anotherperson.(b) substanceoftheevidencehasbeendisclosedwiththeexpressorimpliedconsentof
theclientorotherparty.C. S123–LossofClientPrivilege-accused
• S123-ifyouareanaccused,itwon’tpreventlegalprivilege.• RULE:Undersection123confidentialcommunicationsordocumentswillnotbeprotectedbyclient
legalprivilegeiftheyarerequiredbythedefendantinacriminalproceeding.Unlesstheconfidentialcommunicationsordocumentsaresoughtfromaco-accused.
• Section123doesnotapplytopretrialinvestigationsordiscoveryassection131Adoesnotapplytosection123.
D. S124Lossofclientprivilege-jointclients
• S124onlyappliestocivilproceedings• RULE:Can’thavelegalprivilegewithjointclients.• Needtoseeklegaladviceindependently.• Inthesecircumstances,communicationsmadebyanyofthepartiestothelawyerorconfidential
documentspaidatthedirectionorrequesttoalawyerwillnotbeprotected.
E. S125–Lossofclientlegalprivilege–misconduct/CommissionofaCrime• RULE:Privilegeislostwherethecommunicationwasinthefurtheranceofacrimeorfraudor
relatedtoanabuseofpower.• CoxvRailton
F. S126–Lossofclientprivilege-relatedcommunicationsanddocuments
• RULE:documentsthatareinsomewayRELATEDtoadocumentorcommunicationNOTprotectedunderprivilegebyvirtueofS121-5arealsonotprotected.
G. S127ReligiousConfessions
• S127apersonwhoreceivesconfessioncanelecttherighttoremainsilentinregardstogivingofevidence
2)Doesnotapplyifcommunicationinvolvedreligiousconfessionwasmadeforacriminalpurpose4)Religiousconfessionmeansconfessionmadebypersontoamemberoftheclergyinmember'sprofessionalcapacityaccordingtotheritualofthechargeorreligiousdenominationconcerned
2.PRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF-INCRIMINATION• ISSUE:Whathappensifyouappearasawitnessandyouareaskedaquestionincrossexamination
thatrequiresanincriminatinganswer?Youcanclaimtheprivilegeagainstselfincrimination• RULE:S128permitsawitnesstoobjecttoansweringaquestionthatrequiresanincriminating
answer.Can’tuseevidenceinanotherproceedingthatcouldincriminatethem(Exceptiontoforeignlaw.)Courtmustdecidewhetherornotanansweristobecompelledwiththecertificateornot.
• REQUIREMENT:UndertheActthewitnessreceivesaCERTIFICATEpreventingtheirincriminating
answersbeinguseagainsttheminanothercourthearing.o Witnessmustfirstobjecttoansweringaquestionbeforethecourtwilldeterminewhether
therearereasonablegroundsfortheobjection.o Ifthewitnessisnotawarethattheycanclaimtheprivilege,thenaccordingtoS132,the
courtmustsatisfyitselfthatthewitnessorpartyisawareoftheeffectofS128.o Courtmustdeterminewhethertheobjectionisbasedonreasonablegrounds;S128(2).o Reasonable=mustbea“realandappreciable”dangerthattheanswerwillincriminatethe
witness:RvBoyles
• S128privilegeagainstselfincriminationdoesnotapplyto:o anaccusedwhoisawitness:s128(10)o corporations:s187
3.MATTERSOFSTATEPRIVILEGES130
• S130privilegeoperatestopreventthedisclosureofrelevantevidenceonthegroundthatsuchdisclosurewouldbecontrarytopublicinterest.
• Test:Thesensitiveevidencethataffectsamatterofstatewillbeexcludedifthepublicinterestinadmittingitisoutweighedbythepublicinterestinpreservingitsconfidentiality
• Eg’sofmattersofstate(S130(4)):
(i)nationalsecurityandinternationalrelations
(ii)relationsbetweentheCommonwealthandaStateorrelationsbetweenStates
(iii)interferencewiththeinvestigationorprosecutionofanoffence
(iv)interferencewiththeinvestigationoroutcomeofcivilproceedings.
(v) identityofaconfidentialsourceof informationinrelationtotheenforcementofCthor
Statelaws
(vi)prejudicingthefunctionsoftheCthgovernmentorastategovernment.
• S130ExclusionofEvidenceofMattersofState.
o Seenotes
4.OTHERPRIVILEGESS131SettlementNegotiations
• Seenotes