Browne v Dunn Flashcards
What is the Rule of Browne v Dunn and who said it?
Lord Hershell, LC in Browne v Dunn stated:
“My lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give the opportunity of making an explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a RULE OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE in the conduct of the case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses.
Is Browne v Dunn legislated or common law OR a rule of law?
No. Browne v Dunn is a RULE OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE. It is strictly a rule of Common Law and is a requirement of the Court without being a legislative requirement.
How many parts to the rule and what are they?
2 parts.
1st part: Fairness; and
2nd part: Weight.
What does the rule of Browne v Dunn mean?
When you intend to discredit or not accept the evidence of a witness, as a matter of fairness and consequently the weight to be attached to that evidence, you should put in cross-examination to that witness the aspects of their evidence that you do not accept, so as to allow them an opportunity to comment.
What is a potential consequence if Browne v Dunn is breached in relation to Weight of evidence?
When considering the result of a breach of Browne v Dunn, one potential consequence is that the evidence may acquire MORE WEIGHT than it would have had if it had been properly challenged in cross-examination.
Does Browne v Dunn apply in Criminal Trials in NSW? Cite the authority.
YES. Browne v Dunn does apply in criminal trials in NSW.
R v Birks found: in criminal matters the rule’s practical content needs to be related to the circumstances of the particular case. One of those circumstances is that we are involved in a criminal trial.
When will a Prosecutor have to comply with Browne v Dunn?
- A defence witness gives evidence contrary to the prosecution version.
- A prosecution witness in unfavourable.
- The defendant gives evidence contrary to the prosecution version.
What did Whitehorn and Apostilides find in relation to Browne v Dunn and the Prosecutor?
When a prosecution witness is unfavourable:
Whitehorn and Apostilides make it clear that the prosecution must call all (reliable) witnesses.
A party must seek leave of the Court before putting leading questions to their own witness.
Section 38(1)(a) of the Evidence Act provides the means for this to happen.
What constitutes a Breach of the Browne v Dunn Rule?
A breach of the rule will occur when a witness’s evidence is first challenged, ONLY after they have been cross-examined.
- party may forget (mere oversight), mistake
- inexperience (“flagrant incompetence” - R v Birks)
- No instructions from the defendant
- Not represented
- Forensic choice
What does R v Costello say in relation to Browne v Dunn
Browne v Dunn does not impose any obligation upon counsel to challenge every word of witness’ evidence (for fear) that any word not so challenged will be given greater weigh or cogency by reason of his failure to do so.
Crown prosecutors who submit to juries that any particular phrase or statement not specifically challenged in cross-examination should be taken as having accepted as true, even when the issue has been taken in general way, misunderstand the rule.
What are the two categories of application of Browne v Dunn?
Strict and liberal application
In relation to a remedy for Browne v Dunn, what caselaw relates to strict application?
Peter Schneidas [1980] - Court refused to allow evidence to be called by the defendant upon certain points to contradict a Crown witness whom Schneidas failed to cross examine on those points.
(Party who failed to cross-examine the witness will be prevented from calling evidence that contradicts a witness’ testimony).
In relation to a remedy for Browne v Dunn, what caselaw relates to strict application?
Khamis v R [2010] NSWCCA
Regarding Schneidas remedy to B v D, it was found:
- Doesn’t apply in Victoria
- Excluding evidence should be “a last option and not one of the first resort” and “A rule that is grounded in fairness should not be used, except as a last resort, to exclude evidence going to the question whether a person is guilty or not guilty of a criminal charge. That would be to respond to procedural unfairness by imposing substantive unfairness.
In relation to a remedy for Browne v Dunn, what caselaw relates to strict application?
Bradley v Matloob [2015] NSWCA 239 R
Non-compliance with B v D does not mean that the court is obliged to accept the evidence of the witness in question, for example where the evidence is inherently illogical or unreliable, or where the opposing party calls evidence of a substantial nature directly contradicting the evidence on which there was no cross-examination, in many cases it would be wrong, unreasonable or even perverse to reject evidence upon which there has been no relevant cross-examination.
In relation to a remedy for Browne v Dunn, what did Seymour v ABC find in relation to liberal application?
Seymour v ABC
- prohibiting the offending party from submitting that an unchallenged witness is not to be believed.
- on appeal, the court may reject any submission relying on untested evidence.