Case Law Flashcards
What is held in R v BURROWS
The court held that the party wishing to bring evidence has the burden of showing the evidence is admissible. It is illogical to require the crown to show admissibility beyond reasonable doubt because circumstantial facts do not have to be proved to that standard. Any evidence that an individual juror might rely in reaching a conclusion as to guilt is admissible.
What was held in R v Hannigan in relation to S9(1) EA 06?
Highlighted that the Judge retains control of this process and may decline to admit the evidence even if all parties agree to its admission, or not allow its admission in the form agreed to by the parties.
What is case law R v Gwaze “Rules of admissibility are rules of law”
the Supreme Court has made it clear that rules of admissibility, including ss 7 and 8, are rules of law and are not matters of discretion. Although they involve questions of judgment, they “prescribe standards to be observed”
What was held in case law Wi v R?
In Wi v R 16 the Court of Appeal held that it was unlikely that permission will be granted under s41(2) when the only propensity evidence offered by the defendant is evidence that he or she has no relevant previous convictions.
In relation to Requirements for admission, what was held in Rei v R
The Court in Rei v R17 clearly laid out the requirements for the admission of propensity evidence under s43. The evidence must:
a) constitute “propensity evidence”, that is evidence that tends to show a person’s propensity to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind, being evidence of acts, omissions, events or circumstances with which the appellant is alleged to have been involved;
b) have a probative value “in relation to an issue in dispute” and other matters that may be relevant, including those prescribed in s43(3); and
c) have a probative value that outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.
What was held in M v R et alia in relation to giving propensity evidence
In M v R et alia18 the judge must identify the relevance of the evidence, outline the competing positions of the parties, and warn the jury against illegitimate reasoning processes
What is discussed in R v Gwaze and Hearsay
“[The] definition of “circumstances” for the purpose of hearsay evidence makes it clear that the inquiry into reliability must include not only accuracy of the record of what is said and the veracity of the person making the statement, but also the nature and contents of the statement, and the circumstances relating to its making.”
What was found in case law B v R in relation to Substantial expert evidence and opinion.
Court in B v R held that it “necessitates consideration of an amalgam of relevance, reliability and probative value”.
Whats is R v Turner Evidence based on proven facts
“Before a court can assess the value of an opinion it must know the facts upon which it is based. If the expert has been misinformed about the facts or has taken irrelevant ones into consideration or has omitted to consider relevant ones, the opinion is likely to be valueless. In our judgement, counsel calling an expert should in examination in chief ask his witness to state the facts upon which his opinion is based. It is wrong to leave the other side to elicit the facts by cross-examination.”
What was held in case law R v Derby Magistrates Court in relation to privilege
“more than an ordinary rule of evidence … it is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests.”
What was held in case law B v Auckland District Law Society in relation to privilege
The Law Lords cautioned that legal privilege was not to be balanced against competing public interests; a lawyer must be able to give a client an absolute and unqualified assurance that what they reveal will not be disclosed without their consent. In New Zealand, the privilege therefore takes primacy over all other public interests.
What was held in Cameron v R in relation to refreshing ones memory?
In Cameron v R, the Court stated that there is a non-exhaustive set of factors that can be considered, including the significance of the events to the witness; the time elapsed between the events and the making or adoption of the document; evidence from the witness about the freshness of their memory; and the detail and lucidity of the recollection recorded in the document.
What was held in Rongonui v R in relation to the time lapse required for memory
In Rongonui v R31, the Court upheld a decision that a statement made 6 weeks after the event could still be a document made or adopted at a time when the witness’s memory was fresh.
What was held Hart v R in relation to previous consistent statements.
“[T]he first thing that must be shown by the party seeking to adduce a witness’s previous consistent statement under subs (2) is that there has been a challenge to the witness’s veracity or accuracy in a qualifying respect. It must have been suggested…that the witness is being untruthful or inaccurate in their testimony. Next it must be shown that it is necessary to admit the witness’s previous statement in order to respond to the challenge to the witness’s veracity or accuracy…The concept of necessity in this context means that it is necessary to admit the prior statement to do justice to the witness’s testimony in Court in light of the attack on that testimony…The touchstone is necessary extent of response, with relevance being implicit in the concept of necessity”.
R v Wanhalla
The starting point is the presumption of innocence. You must treat the accused as innocent until the Crown has proved his or her guilt. The presumption of innocence means that the accused does not have to give or call any evidence and does not have to stablish his or her innocence.
The Crown must prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, you are sure that the accused is guilty.
