Entrance exam Flashcards
Corroboration
- Originally, certain ‘unreliable evidence’ required corroboration. Now abolished.
- Also, originally, the judge was required to warn juries of dangers of certain categories of uncorroborated evidence. Now abolished.
- Trial judge retains general power/obligation to warn jury about dangers of uncorroborated evidence, including that it would be dangerous to convict.
List of unreliable evidence
Hearsay evidence
Admissions
Identification evidence
Evidence affected by age, ill health, injury
Evidence in criminal proceeding by witness who may have been criminally concerned
Prison informer
Oral evidence of unsigned questioning by investigating official
Evidence adduced by or on behalf of someone in a proceeding against the estate of a dead person (about which the dead person could themselves have given evidence if they were alive)
Any other evidence that “may be unreliable”
Good reason for not giving unreliable evidence warning
undisputed
Not important
Unlikely to be unreliable
Supports the defence
Hearsay evidence of the accused and the accused has not testified in the trial
Comes from the co-accused
Lack of enthusiasm in the request for a warning and the absence of any request or reminder at the conclusion of the summing up when the direction had not been given
Process for unreliable evidence
Party makes application for warning or direction due to evidence being unreliable
Judge must give warning
Must contain
-may be unreliable
-reasons
-need for caution
Unless there is a good reason (burden is on person against giving the warning)
Children’s evidence
• Judge must not
o Warn that children are unreliable per se
o Warn about unreliability of child based on age
• Judge may still
o Warn jury about reliability of a particular child’s evidence and reasons why
o Party must request
o Party must satisfy the court that there are particular circumstances that affect reliability that warrant warning (or giving of information of circumstances)
• Content
o No requirement as to content unlike 165(2)
Delay in prosecution
• If court satisfied that defendant has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage (SFD) because of delay (CRITERIA)
o SFD not established by delay only
o Delay includes delay between alleged offence and its being reported.
• Court MUST inform jury of the nature of disadvantage and the need to take it into account when considering evidence (MANDATORY WARNING)
• Application by defendant (APPLICATION)
o No obligation on judge unless requested
o The possibility of miscarriage means judge should ask in appropriate circumstances whether a warning is requested.
• Court does not have to if there are good reasons not to. (PROVISO)
• Particular words not necessary (CONTENT)
• This section covers the field in respect of delay (COVERING THE FIELD)
Unfavourable witnesses
• With court’s leave, may switch to cross examination about
o Unfavourable evidence (does not permit cross exam generally)
o A matter which they should know about but aren’t making a genuine attempt to give
o Whether they have made a prior inconsistent statement
• With court’s leave, may question only about credibility
• This questioning is to happen before other party’s cross examine
• court may take into account whether party sought opportunity at earliest time to seek leave
Leading questions
• Must not in exam in chief unless
o Leave
o Introductory matter
o No objection is made and each other party is represented by a lawyer
o Relates to matter not in dispute
o For experts – the question’s purpose is to obtain opinion about a hypothetical statement of facts (being facts in respect of which evidence has been or is intended to be given)
Improper questions
• Court must disallow cross exam (or tell witness they don’t have to answer) if it thinks a question is
o Misleading or confusing
o Unduly annoying / harassing / intimidating / offensive / oppressive
o Tone that is belittling, insulting, inappropriate
o Has no basis other than a stereotype
• Not disallowable only because it
o Challenges witness’s honesty
o Requires discussion about something distasteful
• Failure of court to disallow does not affect admissibility of answer
Prior inconsistent statement
- Witness can be cross examined about an alleged PIS made by the witness whether or not complete particulars of the statement have been given to the witness or a document containing a record of the statement has been shown to the witness. This rule only covers circumstances where the cross examiner wants to adduce evidence of the PIS otherwise than from the witness of a PIS that the witness refuses to acknowledge.
- If witness doesn’t admit to PIS, cross examiner cannot adduce evidence of the statement otherwise than from the witness unless the cross examiner informs the witness of enough of the circumstances of the statement so that the witness can identify the statement or draws the witness’s attention to so much of the statement as is inconsistent with the witness’s evidence.
In documents:
• If a party cross examines a witness about a PIS that is recorded in a document or a previous representation made by another person that is recorded in a document, the court can order or the other party can request the document or such evidence of the contents of the document as is available.
• The court can examine the document, give directions as to its use, admit it even if it has not been tendered by a party (unless it’s inadmissible).
• A cross examiner doesn’t have to tender a document just because they produce it to a witness.
Previous representations of other persons
- A cross examiner can’t question a witness about a previous representation made by another person.
- Unless, evidence of the previous representation has been or will be admitted.
- If not, but the representation is in a document, it can be used if:
- The document is produced to the witness
- If it’s a tape recording, the witness is given an opportunity to hear it without other persons present
- Is asked whether they stand by the document
- The cross examiner or witness must not identify or disclose contents of document.
Witness called in error
- If a witness has been called in error and hasn’t been questioned by the other party, a party may not cross examine.
- Rationale: a party should be free to withdraw a witness if they decide it was a mistake to call them. The other party can always call the witness.
Recalling witnesses
• If the witness had their say, and the second party adduces new evidence, and the witness didn’t have a chance to say anything about that evidence (because it’s new), the first party can recall the witness to have their say about that new evidence, i.e., if the new evidence contradicts something the witness said the first time round or if the witness could have given evidence about the matter in evidence in chief.
Hearsay rule
Evidence of a previous representation (i.e. outside proceedings) made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation.
General list of hearsay exceptions (*6)
All hearsay
- Non hearsay purpose
- Other exceptions (e.g. business records)
1st hand hearsay
- criminal - maker available
- criminal - maker not available
- civil - maker available
- civil - maker not available
- contemporaneous statements about health
Hearsay exception - non-hearsay purpose
• Prove basis of expert’s opinion
o Knowledge acquired by experts reading others experts
o The reported data of fellow experts relied upon by such persons as scientists and technical experts in giving expert opinion evidence
• Prove prior inconsistent (presented by cross examiner)
• Prove prior consistent statement (meet allegation of fabrication)
• Prove formation of agreement
Admissions
Hearsay exception - criminal - maker not available
• Person who perceived rep can give evidence if
o Representor was under a duty
Derives from common law exception for people, now dead, who were under a duty to observe and record things
o Was made shortly after the asserted fact occurred and fabrication unlikely
A statement made 24 hours after incident was open to trial judge to be shortly after – but this is stretching it
Williams decision suggests that it should be spontaneous or under the proximate pressure (shortly after) of the incident
o Circumstances in which highly probably that rep is reliable
Need to point to circumstances – not just to absence of circumstances
o Against the interests of the person and likely to be reliable
o Representation given in Australian or overseas proceedings (accused must have had opportunity to cross examiner the representor)
o If evidence of previous representation is adduced by defendant, HR doesn’t apply to evidence of another repsentation about the same matter that is adduced by another party and is given by a person who perceived the second representation being made.
If the defence adduces evidence of a third party confession, the prosecution may adduce evidence from a person who heard the alleged confession that the third party also made other statements which qualified the confession in some way
Hearsay exception - criminal - maker available
• If the maker has been called to give evidence, HR doesn’t apply to evidence of the representation that is given by:
o The maker
o A person who perceived the rep
• …if the asserted fact was fresh in the memory of the maker
Hearsay exception - civil - maker not avaialble
- Evidence of a rep given by a person who perceived the representation
- Document or other document that is necessary to refer to understand
Hearsay exception - civil - maker available
• Evidence of a rep given by a person who perceived the representation
• Document or other document that is necessary to refer to to understand
..if it would cause undue expense/delay to call the person who made the representation.
• If the maker has been called to give evidence, HR doesn’t apply to evidence of the representation that is given by:
o The maker
o A person who perceived the rep
(note - same as criminal maker available exception except the asserted fact has to be fresh in the memory of the maker)
Hearsay exception - contemporaneous statements about a person’s health (first hand hearsay only)
Contemporaneous statements about a persons health- hearsay rule doesn’t apply to evidence of a rep made by a person if the representation was a contemporaneous statement about their health, feelings, sensations, intentions, knowledge or state of mind.
Other hearsay exceptions
Business records
Contents of tags, labels and writing
Electronic communications
Aboriginal and TSI traditional laws and customs
Reputation as to relationships and age
Reputation of public or general rights (Rights of a group of Aboriginals in respect of a particular piece of land)
Interlocutory proceedings
Jurisdiction - Magistrate Court
- Summary offences
- Indictable offences triable summarily (principally in Criminal Procedure Act s 28 and Sch 2)
- Committal proceedings
- Mention Court – uncontested matters triable summarily, encouraging resolution in potential plea negotiation cases, setting hearing dates for contested matters
- Pre contest mention – general progress of case through court
- Contest mention – evaluating cases which appear likely to be contested
- Magistrates, judicial registrars, registrars, bail justices
Jurisdiction - Children’s Court
- Summary offences
- All indictable offences triable summarily except wrongful death cases (with permission of Court and accussed)
- Wrongful death = murder, manslaughter, child homicide, defensive homicide, arson causing death, culpable driving causing death
- (Murder can only be heard in the supreme court, the others can be heard in the County Court)
- Child means person over 10 and under 18 and if the committed the offence when under 18 the proceedings may commence until they’re 19