Chapter 8 - Evidence Flashcards
Section 18 Evidence Act 2006 (Main exception to hearsay rule
General admissibility of hearsay
(1) A hearsay statement is admissible in any proceeding if
• the circumstances relating to the statement provide assurance that the statement is reliable: and either
• the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness: or
• the judge considers that undue expense or delay would be caused if the maker of the statement were required to be a witness.
Section 18 makes it clear that there are two criteria for admissibility:
• reliability and
• unavailability or nude expense or delay
The notice requirement in S 22 Evidence Act 2006 must also be met before a hearsay statement can be admitted.
The focus of S18(1)(a) is the reliability of the hearsay statement itself, not the person who intends to give the hearsay evidence. The reference to “reasonable assurance” of reliability means that the evidence must be reliable enough for the fact-finder to consider it, and draw their own conclusions as to the weight to be placed on the evidence.
Section 18 of the Evidence Act 2006 what are two requirements / criteria for admissibility ?? (RU)
Reliability
Unavailability or undue expense or delay
What is evidence?
“Evidence” is the term for the whole body of material which a court or tribunal - ie in criminal cases the judge or jury - may take into account in reaching their decision.
Evidence may be oral, written or visual form.
What are the rules of evidence ?
The rules of evidence fall into three main categories
• How evidence may be given
• Who may give evidence
• What type of material may be given in evidence.
The rules of evidence determine the form in which and the means by which evidence is presented to the court. They are in both specific statutory provisions and case law. Most of the law is in the Evidence Act 2006.
Admissible Evidence (Basic Terminology)
Evidence is admissible if it is legally able to be received by a court.
Who is the fact finder during a court proceeding?
Fact finder (basic terminology)
Judge or Jury
Relevance (basic terminology)
Evidence is relevant “if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding (S7(3) Evidence Act 2006)
What is the General Exclusion under Section 8 of the Evidence Act 2006 ?
In any proceeding the judge must include evidence if it’s PROBATIVE VALUE is outweighed by the risk that the evidence will
(1) Have any unfair prejudicial effect on the proceeding
(2) Needlessly prolong the proceeding
What is section 8(1)(b) and what’s it about?
(NPP)
Section 8(1)(b) excludes evidence that will prolong the proceedings.
For example, where a defendant wished to fall on 20 witness to give evidence as to his or hers veracity. Section 8(1)(b) could be used by the judge to limit the evidence to fewer witnesses.
Section 7 of the Evidence Act 2006 - Fundamental principle that relevant evidence is admissible.
All relevant evidence in a proceeding is admissible except evidence that is
• Inadmissible under any act or this act
• Not relevant under any act or this act
Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible in a proceeding.
Evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding.
Section 7 of the Evidence Act 2006 - Fundamental principle that relevant evidence is admissible.
All relevant evidence in a proceeding is admissible except evidence that is
• Inadmissible under any act or this act
• Not relevant under any act or this act
Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible in a proceeding.
Evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding.
Section 43 of the Evidence Act rule for this evidence to be admissible
Section 43 requires that propensity evidence offered by prosecution about a defendant will only be admissible where the evidence “has a probative value in relation to an issue in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.
