Evidence Flashcards

1
Q

Evidence (Definition)

A
  • Is the term for the whole body of material
  • Which a court or tribunal (i.e. in criminal cases the judge or jury) may take into account in reaching their decision
  • Evidence may be in oral, written or visual form
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Admissible Evidence (Definition)

A

Evidence is admissible if it is legally able to be received by a court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Witness (Definition)

A

This is a person who gives evidence and is able to be cross-examined in a proceeding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Facts In Issue

A
  • Prosecution must prove to establish the elements of the offence, or
  • Defendant must prove to succeed with a defence, in respect of which he or she carries the burden of proof
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Weight of Evidence

A
  • Extent to which, if accepted, it is directly relevant to or conclusive of, those facts
  • Extent to which it is supported or contradicted by other evidence produced
  • Veracity of the witness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Giving Evidence

A
  • In the ordinary way – either orally in a courtroom in the presence of a judge, jury or reading a written statement in a court room
  • In an alternative way
  • in the courtroom but unable to see the defendant or other person
  • outside the courtroom by audio-video link,
    or by video recording made before the hearing
  • In any other way - provided for by the Evidence Act 2006 or any other relevant enactment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Incriminate

A

Provide information
likely to lead to or increase the likelihood of the prosecution of a person for a criminal offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Direct Evidence (Definition)

A
  • Any evidence given by a witness as to a fact in issue
    that he or she has seen, heard or otherwise experienced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Circumstantial Evidence (Definition)

A
  • Evidence of circumstances that do not directly prove any fact in issue, but which allow inferences about the existence of those facts to be drawn
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Woolmington principle

A

is the presumption of innocence. This principle establishes that, subject to specific statutory exceptions,
the burden of proof lies clearly with the prosecution
in relation to all of the elements of the offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Woolmington Exceptions

A

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution except where (burden of proof is placed on the defendant):
The defence of insanity is claimed (S23(1) of the Crimes Act 1961)
Specific Statutory exceptions exist (e.g. S202A (4)(b) – defendant to prove absence of intent) The offence is a Public welfare regulatory offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Standard of Proof

A

Any party bearing a legal burden of proof must discharge this burden to the standard required
If legal burden is on the prosecution, it must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt
Where the defence bears the burden, it need only be proved on the balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v WANHALLA

A

Juries should be told that a reasonable doubt is an
honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Beyond reasonable Doubt (Definition)

A

Beyond reasonable doubt: is the standard of proof required for the Prosecution to prove its case. It means that jurors must be satisfied of guilt before they can convict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Balance of probabilities (Definition)

A

Balance of probabilities: is the standard of proof required for the defense to prove a particular element of its case (e.g. insanity).
It means it must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case.
If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say:
“We think it more probable than not”, the burden is discharged;
if the probabilities are equal, the burden is not discharged.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Purpose of Evidence Law (S6 Evidence Act 2006)

A

The purpose of this Act is to help secure the just determination of proceedings by:
c) promoting fairness to parties and witnesses; and
d) protecting rights of confidentiality and other important public interests; and
e) avoiding unjustifiable expense and delay; and
f) enhancing access to the law of evidence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Establishing facts, exceptions and presumptions

A

A general rule of evidence is that:
All facts in issue and facts relevant to the issue must be proven by evidence – two exceptions (when no evidence needs to be given of facts) are where:
Judicial notice is taken of facts
The facts are formally admitted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Judicial Notice

A

When a court takes judicial notice of a fact, it declares that it will find the fact exists or will direct the jury to do so even though evidence has not been established that the fact exists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Presumptions of Law

A

Presumptions of law are inferences that have been expressly drawn by law from particular facts. Presumptions of law may be either conclusive or rebuttable. example: child under 10 yrs, is unable to be convicted CA1961, S21(1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Presumption of Fact

A

Presumptions of fact are those that the mind - naturally and logically draws from the given fact, example: one presumes person has guilty knowledge if they have possession of recently stolen goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Admissibility and the principles of evidence law

A

In deciding whether evidence is admissible, the court have reference to certain principals of evidence law, these include: Relevance, Reliability and unfairness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Relevant evidence is defined

A

Evidence Act 2006 Section 7(3)
Evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disapprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Ways unfairness usually arises and result in exclusion of evidence

A
  • Evidence may be excluded if
    it would result in some unfair prejudice in the proceeding
  • Evidence not prejudicial in itself in terms of the actual verdict may still be excluded where it has been obtained in circumstances that would make its admission against the defendant unfair
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Section 8 General exclusion provision

A

The S8 test involves balancing the probative value of the evidence against the risk that it will:
- Have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding S8(1)(a)
- Needlessly prolong the proceeding S8(1)(b)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Section 43

A

specific focus on the prejudicial effect on the defendant where the prosecution wish to offer propensity evidence about the defendant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Hearing in Chambers

A

Section 15
governs evidence given by a witness, to prove the facts necessary, for deciding whether some other evidence should be
admitted in a proceeding.
Such a hearing is commonly referred to as a ‘hearing in chambers particularly where the jury is excluded from the courtroom for the duration of the admissibility hearing.
Facts determined at a hearing in chambers are sometimes referred to as ‘preliminary facts’, or ‘preliminary hearing’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Limited use of Evidence & use for multiple purposes

A

Once evidence is admitted, it can generally be used for all purpose
HART v R:
The statute proceeds on the basis that generally speaking evidence is either admissible for all purposes or it is not admissible at all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Exclusive rules of evidence

A
  • Propensity
  • veracity
  • hearsay
  • opinion
  • identification
  • improperly obtained evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Veracity Rules: Section 37(3)

A

(b) that the person has been convicted of 1 or more offences that indicate a propensity for dishonesty or lack of veracity:
(c) any previous inconsistent statements made by the person:
(d) bias on the part of the person
(e) a motive on the part of the person to be untruthful.

30
Q

Propensity (Definition)

A

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 a person is alleged to have been involved

31
Q

When propensity is admissible

A

The probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect

32
Q

List the things a judge may consider when considering propensity evidence

A

(a) The frequency with which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence have occurred
(b) The connection in time between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances of the evidence and those of the offence for which the defendant is being tried
(c) The extent of the similarity between the acts, omissions or events of the evidence and those of the offence for which the defendant is being tried
(d) The number of persons making allegations against the defendant that are similar to the offence for which the Defendant is being tried
(e) Whether the allegations described in paragraph (d) may be the result of collusion or suggestibility
(f) The extent to which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances of the evidence and those of the offence for which the defendant is being tried are unusual

33
Q

Hearsay statement (Definition)

A

Section 4
a) was made by a person other that a witness, and
b) is offered in evidence at the proceeding to prove the truth of its contents

34
Q

Statement (Definition)

A

Section 4
A spoken or written assertion by a person of any matter, or
Non-verbal conduct of a person that is intended by that person as an assertion of any matter

35
Q

Admissibility of Hearsay statement

A

Section 18: Two Criteria
A hearsay statement is admissible in any proceeding if
a) the statement is reliable and
b) either:
i) the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness or
ii) the judge considers that undue expense or delay would be caused if the maker of the statement were required to be a witness

36
Q

Lack of reliability rule against hearsay statement

A
  • where the maker of a statement is not called as a witness, there is no opportunity to cross-examine them regarding its contents
  • the concern that juries cannot evaluate evidence properly without being able to see the demeanor of the person who made the statement
  • there is a danger that witnesses will make mistakes about the meaning or content of statements made by other people (Chinese Whispers)
37
Q

Circumstances Defined

A

Section 16(1) Evidence Act 2006
Circumstances in relation to a statement made by person other than witness
(a) Nature
(b) Contents
(c circumstances that relate to
- making of the statement
- veracity of person
- accuracy of observation of the person

38
Q

Unavailable as a Witness Defined

A

Section 16(2) Evidence Act 2006
person is unavailable as witness if:
a) dead
b) outside NZ and it is not reasonably practicable for him/her to be a witness
c) unfit to be a witness because of age or physical or mental condition
d) cannot with reasonable diligence be identified or found
e) not compellable to give evidence

39
Q

The general exclusionary rule (S23 Opinion Rule): to prevent admission of unreliable, superfluous or misleading evidence

A

The justifications for the rule include that:
where a witness offers a bare opinion it holds little probative weight
there is a danger that a witness offering opinion evidence will “usurp” the function of the tribunal of fact, which is to draw the necessary inferences from the facts presented in evidence.
A witness’s evidence of opinion may be based on other evidence which, if stated expressly, would be inadmissible (for example, where an opinion is based largely on propensity evidence).

40
Q

Non-Expert opinion evidence (S24 General admissibility of opinions)

A

In order to be admissible under s24, the statement of opinion must fulfil two basic criteria:
- opinion must be the only way in which to effectively communicate the information to the finder of fact,
- witness must be stating an opinion (be it conclusion, inference etc) from something personally perceived.

41
Q

Admissibility of expert opinion evidence (S25)

A
  • be that of an “expert”
  • comprise “expert evidence”, and
  • offer substantial help to the fact-finder in understanding other evidence or ascertaining any fact in the proceeding
42
Q

Qualification as an expert

A

S4 of the act defines an expert as: a person who has specialized knowledge or skill based on training, study or experience The expert is required to demonstrate to the court that
- he or she has the requisite qualification to be deemed “expert” in the field in question;
- Evidence offered by an expert should be within his or her area of expertise

43
Q

R v HUTTON (Experts)

A
  • an expert must state his or her qualifications when giving evidence
  • the facts, matters and assumptions on which opinions are expressed must be stated explicitly
  • the reasons for opinions given must be stated explicitly
    any literature or other material used or relied on to support opinions must be referred to by the expert
  • the expert must not give opinion evidence outside his or her area of expertise
  • if an expert witness believes that his or her evidence might be incomplete or inaccurate without some qualification, that qualification must be stated
    an expert has an overriding duty to assist the Court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise, and
  • an expert is not an advocate for any party.
44
Q

What are the 4 things an officer must check prior to serving a summons

A
  • Whether they are allowed to give evidence
  • Whether they are required to give evidence
  • Whether they can refuse to give evidence, and
  • What type of witness they will be
45
Q

All people are eligible and compellable

A

A witness is eligible if they are lawfully able to give evidence on behalf of both prosecution and defence.
A witness is compellable if they can be required to give evidence against their will for both prosecution and defence

46
Q

Compellability of Defendants and Associated Defendants

A

Section 73 (2)
- An associated defendant is not compellable to give evidence for or against a defendant in a criminal proceeding unless:
- The associated defendant is being tried separately from the defendant, or
The proceeding against the associated defendant has been determined

47
Q

Privilege (Definition)

A

The right to refuse to disclose or to prevent disclosure of what would otherwise be admissible

48
Q

Types of privilege

A
  • communications with legal advisors
  • communications with ministers of religion
  • information obtained by medical practitioners and clinical psychologists
  • Informer privilege
49
Q

Information obtained by medical practitioners and clinical psychologists (S59)

A

Apples to a person who consults or is examined by a medical practitioner or a clinical psychologist for drug dependency or any other condition or behaviour that may manifest itself in criminal conduct

50
Q

Independent evidence conforming or supporting a fact - Corroboration (S121)

A

It is not necessary in a criminal proceeding for the evidence on which the prosecution relies to be corroborated except with respect to the offences of:
- Perjury and
- False Oaths and
- False statements or declarations and
- Treason

51
Q

Corroboration (Definition)

A

It is independent evidence that tends to confirm or support some fact of which other evidence is given and implicates the defendant in the crime charged

52
Q

Type of offences are considered by law to require corroboration

A

There are two types of offence in which the unsupported evidence of one witness is insufficient to support a conviction they are perjury and related offences and treason
In these instances, corroboration is required as a matter of law

53
Q

Judges role in jury trial

A
  • decide all questions concerning the admissibility of evidence
  • explain and enforce the general principles of law applying to the point at issue
  • instruct the jury on the rules of law by which the evidence is to be weighed once it has been submitted.
  • determine whether there is any evidence that is fit to be submitted to the jury for its consideration
54
Q

Oaths and Affirmations

A
  • Person 12 years or older must take oath or affirmation before giving evidence
  • Person under 12 will be informed by judge about importance of telling the truth and not telling lies
  • Then make a promise to tell the truth
55
Q

Evidence in chief

A

Purpose is to elicit testimony that supports the case of the party calling that witness

56
Q

Prohibition on leading questions

A
  • General rule is that it may not be asked during evidence in chief or re-examination
57
Q

Leading question definition

A

is one that directly or indirectly suggests a particular answer to the question

58
Q

Prohibition on leading questions based on belief it will produce unreliable evidence for following reasons

A
  • There is a natural tendency for people to agree with suggestions put to them by saying “yes”
  • Counsel asking leading questions of their own witnesses can more easily elicit the answers which they wish to receive
  • result in the manipulation, construction of evidence through collusion, conscious or otherwise
59
Q

When leading questions maybe allowed under s89

A
  • To direct the witness attention to the subject of identification evidence
  • to jog a witness’s memory about some fact or event in issue
  • in eliciting the evidence in chief of very young people, people who have difficulty speaking English, and people who are of limited intelligence
  • Where the witness has been declared hostile
60
Q

What are the conditions that are required when you seek leave to refresh your memory?

A
  • leave of the judge must be obtained
  • document must be shown to every other party in the proceeding
  • S90(5) requires the document (consulted) to have been “made or adopted” by a witness “at a time when his or her memory was fresh”.
  • Whether a document was made while the memory was fresh depends on the circumstances of the individual case
61
Q

Previous Consistent statements rule (35)

A
  • Responds to a challenge that will be or has been made to the witness’s veracity or accuracy
  • Forms an integral part of the events before the court, or
  • Consists of the mere fact that a complaint has been made in a criminal case
62
Q

Questions that be asked of Hostile witness

A
  • asking leading questions
  • asking questions designed to probe the accuracy of memory and perception
  • asking questions as to prior inconsistent statements, and
    other challenges to veracity, including evidence from other witnesses
63
Q

Hostile witness defined (s4)

A
  • exhibit, a lack of veracity when giving evidence unfavorable to the party who called the witness
  • gives evidence that is inconsistent with a statement made or to exhibit, an intention to be unhelpful to the party who called the witness
  • refuses to answer questions or deliberately withholds evidence
64
Q

Cross-Examination

A

There are two purposes of cross-examination:
- elicit information supporting the case of the party conducting the cross-examination
- Challenge the accuracy of the testimony given in evidence-in-chief

65
Q

Unacceptable Questions

A
  • the age or maturity of the witness
  • any physical, intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairment of the witness
  • the linguistic or cultural background or religious beliefs of the witness
  • the nature of the proceeding
66
Q

Re-examination

A

the party who called the witness may re-examine that witness for the purposes of clarifying or qualifying any issue raised during cross-examination, but may not be questioned on any other matter, except with the permission of the judge

67
Q

Evidence in rebuttal and recalling witnesses

A
  • relates to a purely formal matter
  • relates to a matter arising out of the conduct of the defence, the relevance of which could not reasonably have been foreseen
  • was not available or admissible before the prosecution’s case was closed, or
  • is required to be admitted in the interests of justice for any other reason
68
Q

Judicial Directions and Warnings

A
  • warning that evidence may be unreliable
  • warnings about lies
  • directions about children’s evidence
  • warnings about identification evidence
69
Q

Warning that evidence may be unreliable

A

the Judge may warn the jury of the need for caution in deciding
(a) whether to accept the evidence
(b) the weight to be given to the evidence.

70
Q

In a criminal proceeding tried with a jury the Judge must consider whether to give a warning

A

(a) hearsay evidence:
(b) evidence of a statement by the defendant, if that evidence is the only evidence implicating the defendant:
(c) evidence given by a witness who may have a motive to give false evidence that is prejudicial to a defendant:
(d) evidence of a statement by the defendant to another person made while both the defendant and the other person were detained in prison, a police station, or another place of detention:

71
Q

Warning about lies

A
  • the jury needs to be satisfied that the defendant did lie before they use the evidence,
    people lie for various reasons,
  • the jury should not necessarily conclude that just because the defendant lied he or she is guilty of the offence charged