✅ HD APPROVED - EVIDENCE (UPDATED FOR 2026) - MLP334

Description

Evidence is a minefield of technical rules, but these HD-proven notes break down the Uniform Evidence Act into a logical, manageable framework. I used these exact notes to conquer Hearsay and Tendency evidence to secure my HD. These notes cover: 1 NATURE OF EVIDENCE LAW - INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIFORM EVIDENCE ACTS - SOURCE OF EVIDENCE LAW: Uniform Evidence Acts - Rules in evidence - Objective of Evidence Law - OVERARCHING CONCEPTS - Nature of Court Proceedings - Role of Judge and Jury - Voir Dire - TYPES OF EVIDENCE - 1) Witness testimony - 2) Physical objects or exhibits - 2) Documents - CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE: DIRECT & CIRCUMSTANTIAL - 1) Direct evidence - 2) Indirect (circumstantial) evidence - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - Admissible v Inadmissible - Fact in issue - TEST: Is the evidence admissible? - BURDEN OF PROOF - Evidential and legal burdens - Which party must discharge the evidential burden v legal burden? - STANDARD OF PROOF - a) Beyond reasonable doubt - b) Balance of probabilities - MATTERS THAT DO NOT HAVE TO BE PROVED IN COURT - OUTLINE OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2 VERBAL EVIDENCE & WITNESSES - VERBAL EVIDENCE - 1) COMPETENCE - 2) COMPELLABILITY - Major exceptions - 1) The accused in criminal proceedings: s 17(2) - 2) Family members of the accused in criminal proceedings: s 18 - THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES: Order of Examination s 28 - 1) CALLING WITNESS - 2) OATHS & AFFIRMATIONS - 3) EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF - Limitations in Examination-in-chief - The rule: No leading questions; open-ended questions only. - Unfavourable witness: s 38 - b) Refreshing a witness’ memory - 4) CROSS-EXAMINATION - a) Statements re 3rd party representation - b) Improper questions: s 41 - CROSS-EXAMINATION: Credibility evidence - 5) RE-EXAMINATION - RE-OPENING A CASE 3 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE & OTHER EVIDENCE - TYPES OF EVIDENCE - 1) ORAL EVIDENCE - 2) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - Commissioner for Railways v Young [1963] HCA 2 - PROVING DOCUMENTS - 1. PROOF OF THE CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS - Butera v Director of Public Prosecution (Vic) [1987] HCA 58 - Regina v L Cassar; Regina v E Sleiman (Judgement No 17) [1999] NSWSC 436 - VOLUMINOUS AND COMPLEX DOCUMENTS - 2. AUTHENTICATIONS OF DOCUMENTS - 3) OTHER / REAL EVIDENCE - The nature of other evidence - Adducing physical evidence and other evidence in the court room - 4 RELEVANCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - Relevance under common law - R v Stephenson [1976] VR 376 - RELEVANCE UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT 2008 (VIC) - Relevant evidence: s 55 - Relevant evidence to be admissible: s 56 - 1. Fact in issue - 2. ‘Rationally affect’: Direct and indirect evidence - WITNESS EXAMINATION - Provisional relevance: s 57 - Inferences as to relevance: s 58 - DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE: s 135 - 5 HEARSAY - THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY EVIDENCE: s 59 - 1. A previous representation - First-hand hearsay - Second-hand hearsay - 2. “To prove a fact” - EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE - 1) EVIDENCE ADMITTED FOR A NON-HEARSAY PURPOSE: s 60 - Non-hearsay purposes of adducing previous representations - R v Gee (2000) 113 A Crim R 376 - Lee v R (1998) 195 CLR 594 - 2) EXCEPTIONS TO FIRST-HAND HEARSAY: ss 63-66A - First-hand hearsay - Exceptions to first-hand hearsay - a) Criminal proceedings where the maker is unavailable: s 65 - s 65(2)(a) - Duty to make out-of-court representation - s 65(2)(b) - Representations made shortly after fact asserted - R v Conway - Williams v R (2000) 119 A Crim 490 - s 65(2)(c) - Reliable representation - R v Mankotia - s 65(2)(d) - Admissions - ss 65(3)-(6) - Previous proceedings - ss 65(8)-(9) - Representations Adduced by the Accused - b) Criminal proceedings where the maker is available: s 66 - ‘Fresh in the memory’ - Graham v R (1998) 195 CLR 606 - c) Civil proceedings where the maker is unavailable: s 63 - d) Civil proceedings where the maker is available: s 64 - e) Contemporaneous statements about a person’s health: s 66A - R v Lock (1997) 91 A Crim R356 - R v Serratore (1999) 48 NSWLR 101 - R v Van Dyk [2000] NSWCCA 67 - NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: s 67 - 3) EXCEPTIONS TO REMOTE / SECOND-HAND HEARSAY: ss 69-75 - s 69 - Business records - s 70 - Tags, Labels and Writing - s 71 - Electronic Communications - s 72 - Traditional Laws and Custom - s 73 - Relationships and Age - s 74 - Public or General Rights - s 75 - Interlocutory Proceedings - EXCEPTION: ADMISSIONS: s 81 - 6 ADMISSIONS - What is an admission? - Admission as an exception to hearsay and opinion rules: s 81 - EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ADMISSIONS - Exclusions of evidence of admissions that are not first-hand: s 82 - Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60 - Admissions not admissible as against third parties: s 83 - Admissions influenced by violence and other conduct: s 84 - R v Ye Zhang [2002] NSWSC 1099 - Higgins v R - The meaning of ‘influence’ - ‘Oppressive conduct’ - Admissions by criminal defendants in the presence of investigators: s 85 - Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216 - R v Donnelly (1997) 96 A Crim R 432 - s 86 - EVIDENCE OF SILENCE: s 89 - Selective answering - R v Barrett [2007] VSCA 95 - Failure to mention a defence later relied on: Sanchez v R - DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF ADMISSIONS: s 90 - Em v R - Section 139 - cautioning 7 OPINION EVIDENCE - Difference between facts and opinion - Difference between observation and opinion - Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA - THE OPINION RULE: s 76 - EXCEPTIONS TO THE OPINION RULE - EVIDENCE RELEVANT OTHERWISE THAN AS OPINION EVIDENCE: s 77 - LAY OPINIONS: s 78 - Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; (2011) 244 CLR 352 - R v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75 - TRADITIONAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS: s 78A - EXPERT WITNESSES: s 79 - Requirements of s 79 - i. Specialised knowledge - R v Tang [2006] NSWCCA - R v Quesada [2001] NSWCCA 216 - Evidence of opinion based on specialised knowledge relating to children - Common law ‘basis rule’ - ii. Training, study or experience - iii. Wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge - Criticism of expert opinion rule - Examples of expert opinion - Funnel-web spider bite causing “acute brain syndrome” case - R v Spiers - ‘Sleep Sex’ and the defence of automatism case - R v Spencer - Comtaminated DNA evidence case - R v Jama - COMMON LAW EXPERT EVIDENCE RULES - ‘Ultimate issue’ rule - ‘Common knowledge’ rule - DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION - OTHER OPINION RULE EXCEPTIONS - Special case 1: Competence - Special case 2: Credibility - EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS JUDGEMENTS OR CONVICTIONS 8 TENDENCY & COINCIDENCE EVIDENCE - THE RULE AGAINST TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE EVIDENCE - COMMON LAW - Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461 - R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319 - EVIDENCE ACT - Negatives of tendency reasoning - THE TENDENCY RULE: s 97 - THE COINCIDENDE RULE: s 98 - THE ‘PURPOSE’ TEST - Evidence that may NOT be tendency evidence or coincidence evidence - ADMISSIBILITY OF TENDENCY & COINCIDENCE EVIDENCE - R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA - 1. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS - 2. ‘SIGNIFICANT PROBATIVE VALUE’ - GBF v The Queen [2010] VSCA 135 - How to assess probative value - Relevant factors when assessing probative value - Alternative explanation for conduct - Concoction and contamination - KRI v The Queen [2011] VSCA 127 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - Similarity as a basis for probative value of coincidence evidence - Quarrell v The Queen [2011] VSCA 125 - CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288 - P N J v DPP [2010] VSCA 88 - Tendency or coincidence evidence about an accused: s 101 - Section 137 (discretion to exclude evidence): Whether evidence is ‘reliable’ - Section 55: Relevance - Section 94: Application of Part - Section 95: Use of evidence for other purposes - Hughes v R [2017] HCA 20 9 CREDIBILITY & CHARACTER EVIDENCE - Credibility vs Character evidence - CREDIBILITY EVIDENCE: DEFINITION - Adam v The Queen [2001] HCA 57 - ‘THE CREDIBILITY RULE’: s 102 - EXCEPTIONS TO THE CREDIBILITY RULE - 1. EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN CROSS-EXAMINATION: ss 103 and 104 - 103 - The accused and credibility evidence: s 104 - R v El-Azzi [2004] NSWCCA 455 - 2. THE FINALITY RULE: s 106 - 3. RE-ESTABLISHING CREDIBILITY: s 108 - R v MDB [2005] NSWCCA 354 - 4. GOOD CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED: s 110 - Protection of complaints in sexual offence cases - 5. CREDIBILITY OF NON-WITNESSES: ss 108A and 108B - 6. SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE: s 108C - THE USE OF CREDIBILITY EVIDENCE IN COURT - 10 PRIVILEGE - TYPES OF PRIVILEGE - 1. CLIENT LEGAL PRIVILEGE: ss 117-126 - Tuckiar v The King (1934) 52 CLR 335 - Rationale behind client legal privilege - Ethical dilemmas - The People v. Belge, 372 798 - Representing the guilty: The Australian Bar Association Model Rules - Section 131A - Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 - DEFINITIONS: s 117 - LEGAL ADVICE: s 118 - Copies of documents - Dominant Purpose Test - LITIGATION: s 119 - LOSS OF CLIENT PRIVILEGE: s 121 - ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING: s 123 - MISCONDUCT: s 125 - Commission of a crime: s 125(1)(a) - Abuse of power: s 125(1)(b) - Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney [1985] HCA 60 - CONSENT: s 122 - Inconsistent behaviour: s 122(3) - Mann v Carnell (1999) HCA 66 - Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37 - Divall v Mifsud [2005] NSWCA 447 - 2. RELIGIOUS CONFESSIONS: s 127 - 3. JOURNALIST PRIVILEGE: s 126K - Public interest exception: s 126K - 4. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION: s 128 - Privilege against self-incrimination vs right to remain silent - Reasonable grounds: s 128(2) - Certificates: s 128 - In the Marriage of Atkinson (1997) 136 FLR 347 - 5. MATTERS OF STATE: s 130 - Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 - Alister v R ("Hilton Bombing case") [1984] HCA 85 - 6. PRIVILEGE RE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: s 131 11 DISCRETIONS - MANDATORY AND DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSIONS - 1. DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSIONS - Section 135 - General discretion to exclude evidence - Hodgson v Amcor Ltd; Amcor Ltd v Barnes & Ors (No 5) [2011] VSC 295 - Section 136 - General discretion to limit use of evidence - 2. MANDATORY EXCLUSIONS - Section 137 - Exclusion of prejudicial evidence in criminal proceedings - Section 138 - Exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence - Robinson v Woolworths Ltd [2005] NSWCCA 426 - Section 165(1)(d) - Warnings