FROM EXAM

Question 1

Previous consistent statements rule 35(2)

A previous statement of a witness that is…

Answer 1

35(1) a previous statement of a witness that is consistent with the witnesses evidence is admissible to the statement -

a) responses to a challenge to the witnesses veracity or accuracy, based on a previous inconsistent statement of the witness, or on a claim of invention on the part of the witness.
b) forms an integral part of the events before the court
c) consists of the mere fact that a complainant has been made in a criminal case

Question 2

Section 33 of the Evidence Act 2006 relates to restrictions on comment on defendant’s right of silence at a trial. What does this section state?

Answer 2

In a criminal proceeding, no person other than the defendant or the defendant’s counsel or the Judge may comment on the fact that the defendant did not give evidence at his or her trial.

Question 3

A number of privileges are outlined in the Evidence Act 2006, list these privileges (CSPSCI)

Answer 3

Communications with legal advisors - S54
Solicitors trust accounts - S55
Preparatory material for proceedings - S56
Settlement negotiations or mediation - S57
Communication with ministers of religion - S58
Information obtained by medical practitioners and clinical psychologists - S59

Question 4

Under section 4 of the Evidence Act 2006, define a hearsay statement

Answer 4

A statement that -

a) was made by a person other than a witness; and
b) is offered in evidence at the proceeding to prove the truth of its contents.

Question 5

List the things that the exclusive rules of evidence deal with

Answer 5

Veracity
Propensity
Hearsay
Opinion
Identification
Improperly obtained evidence

Question 6

The section 8 test involves balancing the probative value of evidence against the risk that it will

Answer 6

8(1)(a) - have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding; or
8 (1)(b) - needlessly prolong the proceeding

Question 7

Define a presumption of fact and example.

Answer 7

A presumption of fact are those that the mind naturally and logically draws from the given facts.
Example; one presumes that a person has guilty knowledge if they have possession of recently stolen goods.
Presumption of fact are simply logical references and so are always rebuttable.

Question 8

There are a number of circumstances in which a judge may direct the jury that evidence should be scrutinised with particular care, or should be given less weight. List these circumstances as contained in Sections 122-127 of the evidence act 2006. (UGLCID) (WDWDWC)

Answer 8

Judicial warning that evidence may be unreliable
Judicial direction about certain ways of giving evidence
Judicial warning about lies
Judicial direction about children’s evidence
Judicial warning about identification evidence
Delayed complaints or failures to complain in sexual cases

Question 9

Define Voir Dire

Answer 9

S15 Evidence Act 2006
Evidence given by a witness to prove the facts necessary for deciding whether some other evidence should be admitted in a proceeding.

Such hearing is commonly referred to as a ‘voir dire’, particularly where the jury is excluded from the courtroom for the duration of the admissibility hearing. Facts determined at a Voir Dire sometimes referred to as ‘preliminary facts’.

Evidence given at a Voir Dire will be admissible in other stages of the proceeding only if the evidence given by the witness at the Voir Dire is inconsistent with the witnesses subsequent testimony at another stage of the same proceeding. Its admissible in order to demonstrate inconsistency.

Question 10

As per Section 7(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 - all relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding except evidence that is - when is relevant evidence not admissible

Answer 10

a) inadmissible under this act or any other act; or

b) excluded under this act or any other act