13: Examination of witness Flashcards
What is the general rule for examination in chief?
no leading questions. Evidence elicited by these questions is not inadmissible, but weight attached may be substantially reduced.
Leading MAY be okay if in interests of justice, discretion of judge.
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF:
Leading allowed when:
- Allowed on formal and introductory matters
- Facts not in dispute;
- When treating a witness as hostile
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF:
Application to refresh memory should be made by:
App to refresh norm made by advocate, but judge can when -) interests of justice.
Who does s139 apply to?:
S139 apply to ANYONE, including D. Can refresh memory “at any stage” in giving oral. Judge decides if his recollection at time = significantly better than oral evidence. No require that memory refresh doc be original.
MAKING OR VARIFYING DOCS –
Document =
anything in which info is recorded, NOT recording of sounds or moving images.
For s139 who must have prepared the document?
Under s139, doc MUST have been prepared by witness (or another provided witness verified doc. Can refresh memory from deposition or statement to police.
Refreshing Memory s139: A witness MAY refresh memory at any time, if:
- He gives evidence that the doc records his recollection at time he made it; and
- His recollection at time is significantly better than oral evidence
Trial judge MAY refuse an app even if statutory conditions met.
Refreshing Memory s139:
Can a judge refuse an application?
Trial judge MAY refuse an app even if statutory conditions met. This ONLY applies to “present recollection revived” = where witness uses doc to refresh existing memory. Where witness has NO RECOLLECTION of an event (“past recollection revived”), docs admissible under s120. Applies to ANY witness + accused.
S139 applies ONLY to “present recollected revived”. Where W has no recollection of events = admissible under s120.
NO requirement doc = original. TEST: copy is accurate or substantially reproduces original.
S139 applies ONLY to
“present recollected revived”. Where W has no recollection of events = admissible under s120.
NO requirement doc = original. TEST: copy is accurate or substantially reproduces original.
REFRESHING MEMORY OUT OF COURT
Prior going into witness box =
conditions a witness may refresh memory while giving evidence doesn’t apply outside the box.
Witnesses = routinely provided with copies of statement before going into court. MAY refresh from statement or visually recorded interview (no requirement witness watch at same time as court, but if diff time = should be asked if + when he watched it.
Who is entiled to copies (s139 refreshing memory out of court)?
Witnesses for pros = entitled to copies
Witnesses for def = entitled to copies
IMPORTANT for pros + judges to ensure witness informed they shouldn’t discuss case. Gen rule: discussion between witnesses shouldn’t take place.
S120
A previous statement by witness = admissible if:
- MTFR - MY TEACHER FRIED RASPBERRIES
- Three conditions satisfied; and
- When giving evidence witness indicates he made the statement + it states the truth.
- Statement made by witness when matters were fresh in his memory but doesn’t remember them + cannot reasonably be expected to remember them well enough
- Third condition:
- Witness claims to be person against whom offence has been committed;
- Offence is one which proceedings relate = ONLY an offence on indictment.
- Statement consists of complaint by witness about conduct constating the offence;
- Complaint not made as result of threat or promise; and
- Before statement adduced, witness gives oral evidence
Fact complaint elicited, e.g. by leading question = irrelevant unless threat/promise involved.
Previous complaints: refreshing memory s120
What is it?
A previous statement by witness = admissible
Previous complaints: refreshing memory s120
Pros may want previous statement to be evidence of truth of its content. If criteria in s120 not met, complaint may
be admissible under s114.
Previous complaints: refreshing memory s120 –
General rule:
against previous consistent (Self-serving) statement = witness may NOT be asked of previous oral/written statement consistent with testimony to show consistency =
against previous consistent (Self-serving) statement = witness may NOT be asked of previous oral/written statement consistent with testimony to show consistency
EXCLUDES:
previous self-serving statement. Other witnesses cannot provide this evidence. Even if testimony = impeached in cross-examin – CANNOT give evidence of previous consistent statement. BUT court = residual discretion in interests of justice, to permit re-examination to show consistence.
against previous consistent (Self-serving) statement = witness may NOT be asked of previous oral/written statement consistent with testimony to show consistency
EXCEPTION:
- Previous complaints
- E.g sexual complaints
- Previous identification + description
- Statements in rebuttal of allegations of recent fabrication.
What are:
SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS (Exculpatory) =
evidence favourable to D that exonerates D of guilty. If statement is purely exculpatory/self-serving, it is not admitted as evidence of facts stated in it, allowed to show reaction when first taxed with incriminating facts.
Principles of
exclupatory statement:
Allowed to show the reaction at the time when taxed with incriminating facts
Principles of
mixed statement:
Admissible for:
Admissible of truth of the facts they contain
Principles of
Inculpatory statement:
Admissible for:
What is a:
Mixed statement?
statement with inculpatory + exculpatory parts = whole statement admissible, inc evidence of truth of facts contained. If D doesn’t give/call evidence, judge MUST – summing-up, set out defence in mixed statement which = admissible as evidence of contents.
Evidence of its contents
What is a:
exculpatory statement?
Relevant as showing:
reaction of the accused on accusation (NOT for the truth)
If statement = wholly adverse to D = MAY be admitted as evidence of truth of facts contained.
Statement in rebuttal of allegations of recent fabrications =
What is the exception to the rule against hearsay?
s120 is an exception to rule against hearsay + rule against previous consistent statements, a statement admitted may be evidence to rebut suggestion oral evidence has been fabrication = admissible truth of contents + credibility. S120
What is:
s3 CPA?
Party calling W NOT entitled to impeach credit by evidence bad chara.
s3 CPA
In assessing whether W = hostile, judge will consider whether:
- Witness in position to assist;
- He has indicated willingness to assist
- Any previous accounts given by him + demeanour in witness box.
With leave, party calling W can prove he made statement inconsistent with present testimony, but the circumstance of statement must be mentioned to W, and he MUST be asked if he made the statement.
s3 CPA
Can a hostile witness be XXes on previous inconsistent statement?
MUst leave be given?
A party MAY contradict unfavourable/hostile W, i.e call other witnesses to prove hostile W failed to establish.
Hostile witness MAY be cross-examined on previous inconsistent statement. Leave MAY be given whether previous inconsistent statement oral/written. If W admits he made previous statement – proof he made it. If doesn’t admit – whether earlier statement can be used depends on facts.
If justification, app may be made to treat spouse = hostile who is competent but not compellable for pros. But desirable judge explains to spouse in absence of jury + before oath taken, if choice is made to give evidence, he MAY be treated like another witness
HOSTILE WITNESSES
Gen rule:
not entitled to impeach credit of own witness-) asking Q./evidence about:
- bad character;
- previous convictions
- bias
- previous inconsistent statements
For a hostile witness,
No application is needed where:
witness bad chara introduced not to impeach his credit, but it supports other discrete part of pros case.
Unfavourable witness
what is it?
witness who fails to come up to proof/gives evidence unfavourably, gen rule applies: only remedy: call other witnesses. Pros adduce evidence to contradict part of witness’s evidence they consider inaccurate/false + invite jury to reject witness’s evidence.
Definition of hostile witness?
witness “not desirous of telling the truth to court” = Gen rule modified:
- Party may, with leave of judge, prove previous inconsistent statement of witness; and
- Party calling witness may cross-examine him asking leading questions
When to apply to treat W as hostile?
Time to apply: When witness first shows unmistakable hostility signs. If pros has statement directly contracting own witness, he should at once show statement -) judge + ask leave cross examine. BUT: judge + party calling him should FIRST consider inviting him to refresh his memory. Discretion for judge.
Role Judge+ Jury
in hostile witness case:
Discretion of judge – treat W hostile = absolute, decision rarely successfully challenged on appeal. Q. if W is hostile is for judge WITHOUT THE JURY, following formal app. Evidence + demeanour of potentially hostile W should be tested in presence jury.
RE-EXAMINATION
After cross exam, W MAY
be re-examined by party who called him. Applies even with hostile W. Leading questions may not be asked! PRINCIPLE: except with leave, Q. should be confined to matters arising out of cross-examin. W May refresh memory in re-examin.
Statement in rebuttal of allegations of recent fabrications = s120 is an exception to
rule against hearsay + rule against previous consistent statements, a statement admitted may be evidence to rebut suggestion oral evidence has been fabrication = admissible truth of contents + credibility. S120 doesn’t govern admissibility
Previous consistent statement will NOT be admissible because
evidence impeached in cross. But if in cross its suggested W recently fabricated, evidence of previous consistent statement = admissible in re-examination. Principle = no app where W cross-examined on basis account = fabricated from outset, unless effect cross creates impression invented story later stage. S120 refers to “fabrication” without qualification “recent” = MUST be recent fabrication.
s120 requires:
S120 refers to “fabrication” without qualification “recent” = MUST be recent fabrication.
YOUNG + VULNERABLE WITNESSES = Judicial College Bench Checklist lists factors to be considered @ first Mags/prelim/plea+trial preparation Hearing in CC:
- Info about child’s development, health + concentration span;
- Whether child unlikely to recognise
- Time estimates;
- Need to schedule “ground rules” hearing about Q, - should be done where young/vulnerable W
YOUNG + VULNERABLE WITNESSES =
Leading questions =
W may NOT be asked leading Q. Evidence elicited by leading Qs is NOT inadmissible but weight attached may be reduced
YOUNG + VULNERABLE WITNESSES =
Leading questions =
EXCEPTIONS:
- On formal + introductory matters, e.g. name + occupation
- Undisputed matters;
- Hostile witness
YOUNG + VULNERABLE WITNESSES =
Ground rules hearing MUST cover:
- Length Q.
- Frequency of breaks;
- Nature of questions to be asked.
YOUNG + VULNERABLE WITNESSES =
Ground rules hearing MAY cover:
- Adopt Q.s to child’s development
- Ask short, simple questions
- Follow logical sequence
- Speak slowly + allow sufficient time
- Use body diagram
Should avoid negative.