relevance

Question 1

relevance - definition

Answer 1

evidence can be relevant where…alone or in conjunction with other facts; and having regard to the common course of events; it tends to prove; a fact in issue Re Van Beelen

Question 2

Common law equivalent to s 56

Answer 2

what is relevant should be received and weighed unless some other rule excludes it. what is not relevant is to be rejected Re Van Beelen

Question 3

every time I assess relevance, what should I ask myself?

Answer 3

what does this tend to suggest? Then, is there a chain of logic which the court can then make a decision.

Question 4

Whenever there is an issue of credibility under s 55(2)(a), what provisions should you consider?

Answer 4

prejudice 135-137

Question 5

When answering a question in respect to the relevance of a piece of evidence, what other principle should I consider.

Answer 5

Prejudice, judicial discretion. Evidence can be relevant, but must be sufficiently relevant to outweigh the prejudicial effect.

Question 6

Why should I be cautious when a party attempts to adduce evidence of a previous conviction

Answer 6

135-137 prejudice. Because it suggests that leopards never change their spots which is potentially prejudicial.

Question 7

Explain IMM

Answer 7

If it’s considered relevant, then it must be assumed that an item of evidence will be accepted as true, regardless of reliability or trustworthiness. Then, it’s up to the tribunal of fact to determine how much weight to give to it.

Question 8

What is sufficient relevance

Answer 8

When the weight of the tendered evidence either adds or subtracts from the probative value of a fact in issue (R v Stephenson). In Smith v R, evidence of the police officer’s was irrelevant because they were in no better position than the jury to compare the man on trial with the man on the security tape.

Question 9

What are the steps in relevance

Answer 9

definition - Re Van Belen
Is there a logical connection which adds or subtracts to the probative value of a fact in issue - R v Stephenson
if it’s relevant - should be received and weighed unless some other exclusionary rule excludes it - Re Van Belen
If there’s prejudice - then it’s up to the tribunal of fact as to how much weight to give to it IMM v The Queen