MLL334 – Evidence LAW EXAM NOTES James Moore

SUMMARY UEA test of admissibility of evidence =

1. Is the witness competent? 2. Is the evidence relevant? 3. Is the evidence excluded by application of exclusionary rule or privilege? 4. Is the evidence excluded by operation of a discretion?

Major considerations:

• Is it a criminal or civil proceeding?

Getting evidence admitted 1. Is it relevant? 2. Does an exclusionary rule apply? 3.10 to 3.2 in Evidence Act (credibility of character,

privileges) 3. Will the judge apply judicial discretions? (Judge decides if evidence is to be excluded. 4. Is it admissible?

Table of Contents

(1)Templatesforanswersoneachtopic

Topic1&2Introduction(NatureofEvidenceLawandtheUniformLaw)Objectivesofevidencelaw(Truth,Discipline&Protection)OtherobjectivesofevidencelawBackgroundtotheUniformLaw/ActVoirDire(S189(2))BurdenandStandardofProofTypesofEvidence ‘FactinIssue’ Directandcircumstantialevidence S144–mattersofcommonknowledge

Topic3–VerbalEvidence(WitnessesCompetence,CompellabilityandEvidenceinChiefandCrossExamination)

Competence(s12presumption&s13)Compellabilityofawitness(s12presumption)MinorExceptionstocompellability(reducedcapacity,certainpoliticalmembers,judgesandjurors)MajorExceptions FamilymembersoftheaccusedS18 TheaccusedS17–righttosilence CommentonfailuretogiveevidenceS20OtherrelevantSections SwornevidenceofwitnessestobeonoathoraffirmationS21 InterpreterstoactonoathoraffirmationS22 ChoiceofoathoraffirmationS23 Requirementsforoathss24 Alternativeoaths24AProcedures(examinationinchief,cross-examinationandre-examination)ExaminationinChief Prohibitionagainstleadingquestions:s37 Vulnerablewitnesses Witnessreferringtodocumentstorefreshmemory:s32(revivingmemory) Leave Policeofficerreferringtodocuments:s33 Limitationsonrefreshingmemory UnfavourablewitnessesCross-Examination Leadingquestions:s42 Limitationoncross-examination Improperquestions:s41 Cross-examinationofpriorinconsistentstatement:s43Re-examination Re-openingCases

Topic4–DocumentaryEvidenceandOtherEvidenceDocumentaryEvidence Whatisadocument(DictionaryoftheAct(s3) Define‘documentaryevidence’–mustdosoinconjunctionws47(1) LabelsofidentifyingdocumentsProofofthecontentsofthedocumentss48(1)(a)-(f)–thewaysinwhichtheymaybeadduced.

Proofbyadmissionwithrespecttocontentsofdocument:s48(1)(a) Copiesorreproductionsofdocument:s48(1)(b) Transcriptsorsoundrecordingsandcodedmaterial:s48(1)(c) Documentsproducedbycomputersorotherdevices:s48(1)(d) Businessrecords:s48(1)(e) Publicdocuments:s48(1)(f)SafeguardsWheretheoriginaldocumentsarenotavailable:s48(4) Define‘unavailable’Voluminousandcomplexdocuments:s50(1)Authenticationofdocuments

OtherEvidence Definitionof‘otherevidence’ Views(intheAct)–demonstrations,experimentsandinspections Experimentsmadeoutofcourt–notinpresenceofjudgeorjury Experimentsinjuryroom Physicalevidence

Topic5–Relevance

S56:relevantevidencetobeadmissible RelevanceandAdmissibility/exclusionaryrules RelevancedefinitionS55:Relevantevidence(test) Lookats55alongsidejudicialdiscretionins135RvStephenson1976–preevidenceact–notallevidencewhichislogicallyrelevantislegallyadmissible

FurtherCasesInferencesastorelevance:s58ProvisionalRelevance:s57CasestoassistinunderstandinghowtheCourtdeterminesrelevance

Topic6–Hearsay

Summary&HearsayTestTheruleofhearsayCriticismsofthehearsayruleS59Elements(1A&1B)+(2)DifferencebetweenHearsayandNon-HearsayRepresentationswithmultiplerelevanceImpliedHearsayObjectivetestofintention

ExpressHearsay IntentionrequirementEvidenceishearsayif:Exceptionstotheruleagainsthearsay

(1) Evidencethatisrelevantforanon-hearsaypurpose:s60(2) Firsthandhearsayexceptions:s63–66A(3) Moreremoteformsofhearsay(secondhand)

Topic7–OpinionEvidence

TheOpinionRule:s76(opinionevidenceisnotadmissible)RationaleforthisruleCasesExceptions Relevantotherwisethanasopinionevidence:s77 Laywitnessopinions:s78 Expertwitnessopinions:s79

Topic8–AdmissionsWhatareadmissions? DictionarydefinitionExceptions:s81AdmissionsareanexceptiontothehearsayandopinionrulesExclusionofcertainadmissions

Evidence of admissions that is not first-hand (section 82) Use of admissions against third parties (section 83) Admissions influenced by violence and certain other conduct (section 84) Unreliable admissions of an accused (section 85) Records of oral questioning of an accused (section 86)

AdverselyaffectingthetruthofadmissionEvidenceofsilence&inferencesdrawnfromitDiscretionaryexclusionsofadmissions:s90(theunfairnessdiscretion)

Topic9–TendencyandCoincidenceEvidence(SimilarFactEvidence)

SimilarfactevidenceActdividesS.F.Eintotwotypes–tendency&coincidenceCommonlawTheUniformEvidenceActTestsforadmissibility–historyandoverviewofcurrentteststhathavebeenusedTendencyrule:s97Coincidencerule:s98Significantprobativevalue StrikingsimilaritytestSummaryofhowcourtsfactorrelationshipbetweeneventorconducttoassesswhetherevidencehassignificantprobativevalueastendency/coincidenceevidence.ConcoctedorContaminatedEvidenceandSignificantProbativeValue

Criminalcases–tendencyandcoincidenceEvaluationofDangersAssociatedwithSimilarFactEvidence(noneofthesearegenuinerisks)TheImportanceofSimilarFactEvidenceConclusionandreformsuggestionsRelationshipevidenceResgestaedoctrineSummary

Topic10–CredibilityandCharacterEvidenceCredibilityevidenceisprimafacieinadmissiblePart3.7and2.8oftheActgovernCredibilityandCharacterEvidenceGeneralRule–Credibilityevidenceisnotadmissible:s102CredibilitydefinedExceptionsPart3.8oftheAct–CharacterEvidence Goodcharacterevidenceadducedbyaccused:s110RuleinRvSkaf:subjectiveintenttoputtheirgoodcharacterinevidence,whichismorethanmerelydenyguilt.

Exceptionscont. Credibilityevidencegivenbyexpertsoncredibility:s108C

Topic13–PrivilegesCommonlawprivilegesands131A(whichextendsclientlegalprivilegetopre-trialcourtproceedingsandprocedures)Privilegeclaims(s132ands134rules)ClientLegalPrivilege Rationale Scopeofclientlegalprivilege S118–LegaladviceS119–LitigationS117–Definitionswhichassistwiths118/19elementsS120–unrepresentedpartiesOriginalandcopiesofprivilegeddocumentsConsiderationsforthetestofwhethercoveredbyclientlegalprivilege

Exceptions:Lossofclientlegalprivilege S121–Lossofc.l.privilegegenerally S122–Clientcanwaivetheprivilege S123–Accused–ifrequiredbydefendantinacriminalproceeding S124–Jointclients S125–Misconduct/commissionofacrime S126–Relatedcommunicationsanddocuments(ifprivilegelostduetoS121-5) S127–Religiousconfessions S128–Privilegeagainstself-incrimination Rationale 3optionsifthewitness’sobjectionisfoundtobebasedonreasonablegrounds Scopeofthisprivilege S128Certificates S187–Corporations S130–MattersofState Rationale&Scope S133–CourtInspections S131–SettlementNegotiations Rationale&Scope ExceptionsOtherPrivileges S126K–Journalistprivilegerelatingtoidentityofinformant S127–Religiousconfessions(formembersoftheclergy)–asabove^ S129–Judicialreasonsprivilege

Topic11-Discretions

General(Part3.11ofUniformEvidenceAct)S192S135discretion(civil&criminalproceedings) Unfairprejudice(relatestos137also)S136‘maylimit‘discretion(Civil&criminalproceedings) S136andS60–ExceptiontothehearsayruleS137–MandatoryExclusion UnfairlyprejudicialS138–ExclusionofimproperlyandillegallyobtainedevidenceDiscretionaryexclusionWarnings–Part4.5ofUniformEvidenceActS165(1)(d)–awarningofpossibleunreliabilityofevidenceALRC’sdescriptionsofjudicialdiscretions

TOPIC3–VERBALEVIDENCE;WITNESSESCOMPETENCE,COMPELLABILITYANDEVIDENCEINCHIEFANDCROSSEXAMINATIONOUTLINECOMPETENCEANDCOMPELLABILITYOFWITNESSESCompetenceofWitnesses

• Note:Ifyouarecompetent,youarecompellable.• S13presumptionisofCOMPETENCE.• S13Competence-lackofcapacity(examineswhenapersonisNOTcompetent)• RULE:ifthepersondoesnothavethecapacitytounderstandaquestionaboutthefact;othe

persondoesnothavethecapacitytogiveananswerthatcanbeunderstoodtoaquestionaboutthefact-foranyreason(includingamental,intellectualorphysicaldisability)-Apersonisnotcompetenttogiveevidence:s13

CompellabilityofaWitness• RULE:Asper,S12allcompetentwitnessesarecompellable,howeverthereareseveralminorand

onemajorexception.• TheminorexceptionsapplytoALLcases(civilorcriminal)whereas,themajorexceptionsapply

solelytocriminalcases.o Minorexceptionstocompellabilityare(rarelyarise)o MajorExceptionsOnlyAPPLYtoCRIMINALPROCEEDINGS

S18FamilymembersoftheaccusedS17Theaccused(righttosilence)

• RULE:Theaccusedorcoaccusedcannotbecompelledtogiveevidenceincriminalproceedings;

S20.CommentonfailuretogiveevidenceS21.SwornevidenceofwitnessestobeonoathoraffirmationS22.InterpreterstoactonoathoraffirmationS23.ChoiceofoathoraffirmationS24.RequirementsforoathsS24A.AlternativeoathControlontheorderofproceedingsCallingwitnessesEXAMINATIONINCHIEF:

• ThesearefriendlyquestionsProhibitionagainstleadingquestions:S37.

• AleadingquestionisDefinedinPart1oftheDictionaryA)AsaquestionthatdirectlyorindirectlysuggestsaparticularanswertothequestionorB)Assumestheexistenceofafacttheexistenceofwhichisindisputeintheproceedingandastotheexistenceofwhichthewitnesshasnotgivenevidencebeforethequestionisasked.

• NoprohibitionagainstleadingquestionsinCivilproceedingsregardinginvestigations,reportsorinspectionsmadebypeoplewhowereperformingofficialpublicdutiesatthetime:s37(2)

VulnerablewitnessesWitnessesreferringtodocumentstorefreshmemory:S32-Revivingmemory

• S32thismayonlyoccurwithleaveofthecourt.o Leavewillgenerallynotbegivenunless:

§ Witnesshascompletelyexhaustedtheirmemory§ Witnesscannotrecalltheeventwithoutusingthedocument§ Documentwasmadewheneventswerefreshinthememoryofthewitness§ Documentwasaccuratewhenmade:s32(2)

S32. AttemptstorevivememoryincourtS33. EvidencegivenbypoliceofficersS34. AttemptstorevivememoryoutofcourtApplicationofleavetorefertodocument:S192. Leave,permissionordirectionmaybegivenonterms(appliestoallmatterswhereleaveisrequired)

• Beforeleavecanbegrantedtoawitnesstomakereferencetoadocumenttorefreshmemory,thecourthastohaveregardtothematterssetoutins192:StanoevskivR(2001).

• LookatmatterstoberegardedbycourtUnfavourablewitnesses

• S38allowsapartytocross-examinetheirownwitnesswherethewitnessevidenceis‘unfavourable’.

• Note:Again,thecourtmusthaveregardingrantingsuchleave,musthaveregardtothemattersins192(seeabove).

• Whatisanunfavourablewitness?Unfavourablehasbeeninterpretedbroadly

o Weneedmorethanneutralevidence.o AdamvTheQueen2001HCA57,forevidencetobecharacterisedasunfavourable,itmust

haveanunhelpfulqualityaboutit,asopposedtoaneutralquality.CROSS-EXAMINATIONLeadingquestions:s42

• Generallyleadingquestionsarepermitted,pursuanttoS42.• Courtcandisallowthem,howeverthecourtwillhaveregardto;S42(2)-• Indecidingwhethertodisallowleadingquestionsthecourtwillhaveregardto:

o Whetherornottheevidenceisunfavourabletothepartythatcalledthatwitness.o Whetherthatwitnesshasinterestthatisconsistentwithcross-examiningtheparty.o Witnessissympathetictocross-examiningtheparty.o Wherethereisaparticularlyvulnerability.

o Theopposingcounselhasadutytoobject,butalsothejudgehasresponsibility

independentlyofobjectionstopreventmisbehaviourinquestioning:LibkevRLimitationonCrossExamination

• Improperquestions:s41:o S41setsouttheimproperquestionsthatwillbedisallowed.

§ ThecourtMUSTdisallowaquestionputtoawitnessincrossexamination,orinformwitnessesthattheyneednotanswerthequestionifthecourtisoftheopinionthatthequestion:

a. misleadingorconfusing,orb. undulyannoying,harassing,intimidating,offensive,oppressive,

humiliatingorrepetitive,orc. isputtothewitnessinamannerortonethatisbelittling,insultingor

otherwiseinappropriate,ord. hasnobasisotherthanasterotype:s41(3)

o InVictoria,thereisajudicialdiscretiontoallowimproperquestions.‘Maydisallow’.§ Improperquestionsputtovulnerablewitnesses(children,orpeoplewithcognitive

impairmentorintellectualdisability)mustbedisallowed;nodiscretion:s41(4)CrossExaminationofaPriorInconsistentStatementTheneedtoinformwitnessesofthatintentiontoassertcontraryfacts

• Failuretodosorunstheriskofitbeingprecludedfromadducingcontradictoryevidence.

• AtcommonlawthiswasknownastheBrownvDunnrule.ThisisnowreflectedinS46.o Onlyoperatesinrespectofrelevantandadmissibleevidence.

Re–Examination• Re-examinationispermittedinrelationtomattersarisingfromcrossexaminationonly.• Generalrule:ifamatterisnotraisedduringcross-examinationcannotbeamatterforre-

examination.o Notpermissibletoraiseothersubjectmatterswithoutleaveofthecourt;S39bo Mattersarisingfromcross-examinationthoughcanbeaskedwithoutleave;S38a.

• Re-examinationgenerallyoccursinoneofthreesituations:

1. Wherewitnessesconducthasbeencalledintoquestionduringcross-examination2. Wherepartsthatarefavourabletotheothersidehavebeenbroughtoutincross-

examination.3. Wherethewitnesses’credibilityhasbeenbroughtintoquestionduetopriorinconsistent

statement.Re-OpeningCases

• Generalprohibitionagainstapartysplittingtheircase;RvSoma.• Exception:Thismaybepermittedwhere:

1) Awitnessisrecalledbecausetheywerenotchallengedonanissue,whichwassubsequentlythesubjectofcontraryevidence.

2) Evidencerelatestoanoncontroversialissuewhichwasoverlooked.3) Evidencerelatestoamatterwhichcouldnothavebeenreasonablyforeseenwouldemergeas

anissue.4) Theevidencecouldnothavebeenobtainedwithreasonablediligenceatthetimethepartywas

conductingitscase.

TOPIC4:DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEANDOTHEREVIDENCETEMPLATEWHATTYPEOFEVIDENCEISIT?

• GovernedbyPart2.2oftheAct

1. Witnessdescribingthefacts/events=Oralevidencegivenbywitnesses2. Documentsrecordingfacts/events=Documentaryevidence3. Trieroffactdirectlyobservingfacts/events=(realorother/demonstrativeevidence)

• EitherDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEorofOTHEREVIDENCE• Dealingwiththepermissiblemethodsofpresentingevidenceincourt–nottheadmissibility,merely

thewaysitmaybeadduced.(Notlookingatadmissibilityhere)

• ExamTip:Considercarefullywhattypeofevidenceitisthatwearetalkingabout.E.g.Fingerprints,DNAevidenceetc.isoftenreferredtoasrealevidencebutordinarilytheycanonlybeprovedbyoralordocumentaryevidence.

ISITADOCUMENT?• DictionaryoftheAct(s3)definesDocumentasanyrecordofinformation,andincludes

a) Anythingonwhichthereiswriting;orb) Anythingonwhichtherearemarks,figures,symbols,orperforationshavingameaningfor

personsqualifiedtointerpretthem.c) Anythingfromwhichsounds,imagesorwritingscanbereproducedwithorwithouttheaidof

anythingelse.d) Amap,plan,drawingorphotograph

• Recordofinformation

o “Anythingwhichcontainsarecordofinformation”-coverswrittenpaperdocumentsandeverydayitems,suchasmobilephones,whiteboards,DVD’s,taperecordings.

o DefinitionprovidesforUSB’sandipods,andpresumablycoverstransitoryinformation(RAM)providedithasbeencapturedandreproduced.

• Examplesofdocuments:o E.g.bottles,mobilephones,clothingetc.maybeconsideredadocumentaslongasthose

itemscontainarecordofinformation.E.g.memorycards,DVDs,tombstonesandbrandedlivestock.

• Whatisnotadoc?

o Purelydecorativesymbols,orfiguresthathavenomeaningandarenotcoveredbythedefinition(considered‘otherevidence’).

ISITDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE?S47(1)• S47providesthattherulesofdocumentaryevidenceonlyapplytodocuments,thecontentsof

whichareofinterestsintheproceedings.• RULE:Ifthepurposeofadducingthedocumentistoadduceevidenceofitscontentsitis

documentaryevidenceandPart2.2.willbeapplicable.• IfthepurposeistomerelytenderthedocumentasathingitisNOTdocumentaryevidenceandPart

2.2.doesnotapply.

• Labelsoridentifyingdocumentso CLsayslabelsaffixedtoobjectsarenotdocumentaryevidence:CommissionerforRailwaysv

Youngo EvidenceActPart2.2.saysthattheyare.Labelsaredocuments.

o S47(1):theActsaysthatlabelsaredocumentsinthattheyarerecordsofinformation,accordingtothedictionary,andtheyaretenderedfortheircontents.

o S47(2):thecopyneednotbeanexactcopy,aslongasitisidenticalinallrelevantrespects.S48PROVINGCONTENTSOFDOCUMENTS

• AllmattersinS48(1)canbeusedasmethodsofprovingadocumentregardlessofwhetherornotthedocumentinquestionisavailable;S48(2).

(a) ProofbyAdmission

o S48(1)Apartymayadduceevidenceofthecontentsofadocumenttobeprovedbyanadmissionwithrespecttothecontentsofadocument.

o Admission=statementsadversetoaparty’sinterestsintheproceedings.o (3)providesthatinordertoadduceevidenceitmustbe:

- Inrespectoftheparty’scaseagainsttheotherpartywhomadetheconcernedadmission,or

- Inrespectoftheparty’scaseagainstthepartywhoadducedtheevidenceinthatway.

(b) Theoriginaldocumentruleabolished(cannowusecopies)

o S48providesarangeofmethodsbywhichthecontentsofadocumentmaybeproved,includingbycopies,transcripts,oralevidence.

o S48(1))(a)-(f):providesarangeofmethodsforprovingthecontentsofdocuments–thecontentsofdocumentsmaynowbeproved,forexample,viacopies,transcriptofrecordingsandsometimesbytheoralevidenceofwitnesses.

o Allofthesemethodsmaybeusedregardlessofwhethertheoriginaldocumentwasavailabletotheotherpartyornot:s48(2).

(c) Copiesandreproductionsofdocuments:s48(1)(b)o RULE:Apartymayprovethecontentofdocumentbytenderingacopyofit.Thereisno

needtoproducetheoriginaldocumentevenifitisavailable.o S48(1)(b)Adocumentthatis(orpurportstobe)acopyofthedocumentinquestionAND

hasbeenproduced(orpurportstohavebeenproduced)byadevicethatreproducesdocuments.

o Copycannotbehandwritten.E.g.scannedoriginalsonacomputerfile.o Doesnotmatterifthecopyisnotanexactduplication,aslongasitisidenticalinrelevant

respects;S47(2).

(d) Transcriptsorsoundrecordingsandcodedmaterial:S48(1)(c)o RULE:Soundrecordingsandcodedmaterialmaybeprovedbywayoftranscripts.o RvCassar;RvSlieman

(e) Documentsproducedbycomputersorotherdevices:s48(1)(d)

o RULE:Allowsintangibleinformation,suchasthatcontainedincomputerharddrives,orotherdevicestobeprovenbymeansofaprintout.

o Coversinformationthatcanbe‘retrieved,produced,orcollated’fromadevice.o S146presumesreliabilityofsuchdocumentsandS147doessoiftheyareproducedinthe

courseofbusiness.o S147presumptionsarerebuttable,allthatisneededistoadduce‘sufficientevidenceto

raiseadoubtabout’theaccuracyorreliabilityofthedocument.

(f) Businessrecords:s48(1)(e)o RULE:Copies,extractsorsummariesofdocumentsmaybeusedaslongastheyarepartofa

business’srecords.

o S147providesarebuttablepresumptionastothereliabilityofdocumentsproducedbydevicesinthecourseofbusiness.

§ Manydocumentsproducedbyabusinessareinfactcopiesandiftheyareproducedintheordinarycourseofbusinesstheyarereliable.

(g) Publicdocuments:s48(1)(f)o RULE:Publicdocuments,suchasacertificateoftitletoland,maybeprovedbycopiesas

longasanauthorisedprinterhasproducedthecopies.o Relevantauthority–includespersonauthorisedonbehalfofthegovernment,

administrationofstate,parliament.ISTHEDOCUMENTUNAVAILABLE?S48(4)

• RULE:s48(4)allowsunavailabledocumentstobeprovedbycopies,extracts,summariesortheoralevidenceofwitnessesaboutthecontentsofthedocument.

• UnavailabledocumentsdefinedinClause5,Part2oftheDictionary.• Adocumentorthingistakennottobeavailabletoapartyonlyif:

o Cannotbefoundafterreasonableinquiryandsearch,oro Destroyedbyparty,oronbehalfofthepartynotinbadfaith,oro Impracticaltoproducethedocumentorthingduringproceeding,oro Productioncouldrenderpersonliabletoconvictionforanoffence,oro Notinpossessionorundercontroloftheparty

ANDo Cannotbeobtainedbyanyjudicialprocedureofthecourt,oro Inpossessionorundercontrolofanotherpartytotheproceedingwhoknowsormight

reasonablybeexpectedtoknowthatevidenceofthecontentsofthedocumentislikelytoberelevant.

o Wasinpossessionorcontrolofsuchapartyatatimewhenthepartyknewormightreasonablybeexpectedtohaveknownsuchevidencewaslikelytoberelevantintheproceeding.

• S48(4)applieswherenotavailableorthereisnoissueastotheexistenceorthecontentsofthedocument:

• Apartymayadduceevidenceofthecontentsofadocumentinquestionthatisnotavailabletotheparty,ortheexistenceandcontentswhicharenotinissueintheproceedingby:

§ 1.Tenderingdocumentsthatisacopy,extractorsummary§ 2.Adducingwitnessevidenceofthecontentsofthedocumentinquestion.

ISTHEDOCUMENTVOLUMINOUSANDCOMPLEXDOCUMENTS?S50(1)

• RULE:S50allowsforconvenience,bulkevidencetobeadducedintheformofasummary,especiallyforfraudcaseswheretherearealargeamountofdocuments.

• Apartymustapplyforleavetoadduceevidenceintheformofasummaryandthecourtwillgrantleaveifitissatisfiedthatthevolumeorcomplexityofthedocumentsmakesitotherwiseinconvenienttoexaminetheevidence.

AuthenticationofDocuments• RULE:UndertheAct,authenticationisnowconsideredapartofrelevance.Thisisthefirstruleof

admissibility.Lookats55and56.a. Onlyevidence,whichisrelevant,maybeadmitted.

• S57ands58(p8)IFNOTDOCUMENTARYISITOTHEREVIDENCE?(nonverbalandnotdocumentary)WHATISOTHEREVIDENCE?

• Called‘otherevidence,realevidence,demonstrativeevidence’.DealtwithinPart2.3.

• Identifywhattypeof‘otherevidence’itis.o Exhibits–physicalobjectsbroughtintocourt

§ Oncetenderedtheobjectcanbetakenintothejuryroomforthejurytoinspect.

o View–Ifthephysicalobjectcannotbetransportedintothecourtthetriercangolookatit.§ S54:Viewsareevidence.Objectscanbe‘viewed’outsidecourtiftheytoo

bigtobringtothecourtroom§ ‘View’isusedasgeneraltermfordemonstrations,experimentsand

inspections;S53.

o Demonstration(typeofview)–involvesreproductionorreconstructionoftheoriginalevent.

§ Canbeincourtoroutofcourtaspartoftheview.

o Generating/Experiments(typeofview)–experimentsinvolvethegenerationofnewevidence

§ Theengineermightconductanexperimenttotesttheco-efficienyoffrictionofaparticularsetofstairstoseehowslipperytheyareandwhetherornottheyarewithinsafetystandards.

§ Eitherinoroutofcourt.WHEN&HOWCANAVIEWTAKEPLACE?OUTOFCOURTINFRONTOFJURY:S53

• S53onlyappliestoOUTOFCOURTdemonstrations,experimentsorinspections:EvansvTheQueenHCA

• Attendaview:Realevidencethatisnotappropriatetobebroughtintocourt–thecourtcangototheevidence.E.g.aview;whenthejudgeandjurygoouttoviewthesceneofacrime.

• S53requiresthatanapplicationbemadetothecourtforanorderthatademonstration,experimentorinspectionbemade.

• S53(3):setsoutthematterstowhichthecourtmusthaveregardindeterminingwhetherornottomakeanorderforademonstration,inspectionorexperimentmaybeheld:

a. Whetherthepartieswillbepresentb. Whethertheviewwillassistinresolvingissuesoffactorwillassistinunderstandingthe

evidencec. Thedangerthattheviewmaybeunfairlyprejudicialormisleadingorconfusing,ormay

resultinanunduewasteofthecourtstimed. Theextenttowhichademonstrationwillproperlyreproducetherelevantconducte. Theextenttowhichtheplaceorthingtobeinspectedhasmateriallyaltered

Conductademonstration/inspection

• Inthecaseofademonstration–theextenttowhichthedemonstrationwillproperlyreproducethecontentoreventtobedemonstrated.

• Inthecaseofaninspection–theextenttowhichtheplaceorthingtobeinspectedhasmateriallyaltered.

• S53(4):prohibitsthecourt,includingjury,fromconductingexperimentsduringdeliberations.• S53(5):permitsthejurytoinspectanexhibitduringdeliberations.

EXPERIMENTSMADEOUTOFCOURTNOTINTHEPRESENCEOFJUDGEORJURY

• RULE:S53doesnotapplytoexperimentsconductedbyexpertswhicharenotinthepresenceofthejudgeorjury.

§ Doesprovideguidanceastotheuseandadmissibilityoftheevidence.

• Juryisonlygoingtohavedirectaccesstoitifittakesplaceincourt.Mostexperimentstakeplaceoutsideofcourtpriortotrial.

• DPPvFarquharson(No.2)2010VSC210EXPERIMENTSINTHEJURYROOMPROHIBITEDDURINGDELIBERATION

• RULE:S53(4)prohibitsthecourt(includingthejury)fromconductingexperimentsinthecourseofitsdeliberations.ReinstatementofthecommonlawexpressedinKozulvR.

• Whentheexperimentsconductedbythejurygobeyondamereexaminationandtestingoftheevidence,andbecomeameansofsupplyingnewevidence,theybecomeimpermissible:KozulvR.

TOPIC5:RELEVANCEANDADMISSIBILITYTEMPLATE

ISTHEEVIDENCEADMISSIBLE?• Evidencemustberelevantinordertobeadmissible.

STEP1:ISTHEEVIDENCERELEVANT?

• RULE:o Ifevidenceisrelevantitisadmissible:S56(1)o Ifevidenceisnotrelevantitisnotadmissible:S56(2)

• Ifevidencehasabearingontheissuesinconsiderationofreachingthedecision,itwillberelevant.

• DEFINITIONOF‘RELEVANTEVIDENCE’S55:1) Evidencethatisrelevantinaproceedingisevidencethat,ifitwereaccepted,couldrationally

affect(directlyorindirectly)theassessmentoftheprobabilityoftheexistenceofafactinissueintheproceeding.

2) Inparticular,evidenceisnotirrelevantonlybecauseitrelatesonlyto-a) thecredibilityofawitness;orb) theadmissibilityofotherevidence;orc) afailuretoadduceevidence.

• TEST:Consideredintermsofrelevancetothecase(theelementsoftheoffence,orcauseofaction).• Evidenceisrelevantifithassomerationalconnectiontoafactinissue,inthesensethatitcould

increaseordecreasetheprobabilityofthatfact’sexistence:SmithvR

• Inferencesastorelevance:s58o WhenaquestionarisesastotherelevanceofadocumentorathingSection58permitsthe

courttoexaminethedocumentorthingandtodrawanyreasonableinferencefromitincludinganinferenceastoitsauthenticityoridentity.

• Provisionalrelevance:s57o Relevanceofevidencewilldependonthecourtbeingsatisfiedofanotherfact.o E.g.therelevanceofonewitness’sevidencemayoftendependontheevidenceofawitness

whoistolatergiveevidence.o S57providesthatifthequestionwhetherevidenceisrelevantdependsonthecourtmaking

anotherfinding,thecourtmayfindthattheevidenceisrelevantifitisreasonablyopentomakethatfinding,ormayfinditrelevantsubjecttofurtherevidencebeingadmittedatalaterstageoftheproceedingsthatwillmakeitreasonablyopentomakethatfinding.

o TEST:IfevidenceisadmittedprovisionallyunderS57,itmustbeshownultimatelytoberelevantinordertobeadmissible.

STEP2:IFEVIDENCEISRELEVANT,DOANYEXLUSIONARYRULESAPPLY?

• Ifevidenceisrelevant,itisadmissibleUNLESSoneoftheEXCLUSIONRULESINCHAPTER3apply(e.g.hearsay)

STEP3:IFEXCLUSIONRULESAPPLY,ARETHEREANYEXCEPTIONSTOTHIS?• Somerulesofadmissibilityprovideforexceptionstoexclusionrules

o Somehearsayisconsideredsufficientlyreliableo Somerulesoperatetolimittheuseofcertainevidencethatcanbeput.

STEP4:IFEVIDENCEISRELEVANT,WILLJUDGEAPPLYJUDICIALDISCRETION?• EvenifevidenceisrelevantandadmissibleJUDICIALDISCRETIONStoexcludeevidenceonthe

groundsofpolicyorfairnessprinciplesexistastowhethertheevidenceshouldbeallowed.

FINALLY,IFEVIDENCEISADMISSIBLE,ISITUBJECTTOJURYWARNING?• Someevidencedespitebeingadmissiblemaybesubjecttojurywarning.

o NOTRULESOFADMISSIBILITY–operateAFTERtheevidenceisdeemedadmissible.

TOPIC6:HEARSAYTEMPLATES59operatesbywayof:

1. Determinetheissuesinthetrialwhichleadustorelevance,then(Relevancetemplate)2. Determinewhatconstituteshearsay–ifwefindthatitishearsay,then3. Itisexcludedunlessthereisanexceptiontotheexclusionaryrule.

ISSUE:ISTHESTATEMENTS59HEARSAY?(andthereforexcluded)

• RULE:Generally,hearsayevidenceisnotpermitted.Theruleagainsthearsaypredominatelyexcludesstatementsorrepresentationsmadeoutofcourtaboutfactsormattersinissue.Theyareconsideredtobeunreliable.

• S59HearsayRule–providesthatevidencethatconstituteshearsay–q beingapreviousoutofcourtrepresentationq madebyapersontoprovetheexistenceofafactq intendedtobeassertedisexcludedasevidence.

ELEMENT1/2:HEARSAYEVIDENCEMUSTBEPREVIOUSREPRESENTATIONMADEBYAPERSON

q Identifytherepresentationinordertoprovethefactthatwasintendedwasasserted.q Isitapreviousrepresentation?(eitherorally,inwriting,expressly,impliedlyorbyconduct)?

o Representationdefined(indictionary)toinclude:a) ‘AnEXPRESSorIMPLIEDrepresentation(whetheroralorinwriting);orb) Arepresentationtobeinferredfromconduct;or

- Silenceornonactionmayconstitutearepresentationc) Arepresentationnotintendedbyitsmakertobecommunicatedtoorseenby

anotherperson;ord) Arepresentationthatforanyreasonisnotcommunicated.’

q Therepresentationmustbemadeoutofcourtq Therepresentationmustbemadebyaperson

o Cantbemachine

ELEMENT2/2:THEFACTMUSTBEINTENDEDTOBEASSERTED• RULE:Implied(orexpress)statementmustbeintendedtofallunderexclusionaryrule(and

thereforeexcluded):S59o Iftenderedtoprovetruthofwhatitasserts=hearsayo IfthestatementistenderedfortheirtruthtoprovethefactthisisNOThearsay

• TEST:o Testofintentionisobjective.Actsays-‘itcanreasonablybesupposed’o Ask:doesitreasonablelooklikethatpersonintendedtomakethatstatement?o Ifobvious,thenintended.o Whatisthepurposeoftheevidence?Isittoproveafactassertedinit?MUSTBE

INTENDED.o Wasthefactintendedtobeassertedbyapersonwhomadetherepresentation?

• IntentionrequirementandIMPLIEDrepresentations

o ‘Itisaprevious,impliedrepresentationthatisusedforthepurposeofprovingthefactintendedtobeassertedbytheimpliedrepresentation’:s59

o Pollotcase–§ “That’sPollotonthephone”=intendedimplied-CallerintendedtoidentifyPollot

asthepersonontheotherendofthephone.o WaltonvR;

§ “HelloDaddy”=StatementdoesnotEXPLICITLYassertanyfactasitisasimplyagreeting,BUTIMPLICITYassertsafact‘mydadisonthephone’.

§ BUTwasitINTENDEDtoidentifyasdad?NO.

§ impliedassertionWASNOTINTENDEDtoidentifycallerasdad,itwasjustagreeting,thereforenothearsay,andsoadmissible.

• Intentionrequirementandexpressrepresentations

o RvLee:Theintentionofthemakeroftherepresentationisnecessaryinrelationtoimpliedassertions,andusefulinrelationtoexpressassertions

DOANYEXCEPTIONSAPPLYTOTHEHEARSAYRULE?(andthereformakeevidenceadmissible)• Exceptionsmeanthathearsaymaybeadmissibleif…..

1. ItisevidencethatisrelevantforaNON-HEARSAYPURPOSE:s60

o EffectofS60–oncetherepresentationisadmittedforitsnonhearsaypurpose,itisadmissiblealsoforitshearsaypurpose.

o S60willapplytoevidencethathasdualrelevancesuchaspriorinconsistentstatementsandtoevidenceformingthebasisofanexpertsopinion,asonceadmittedforitsnonhearsaypurpose,S60willallowthemtobeusedasevidenceofwhattheyassert

2. FIRSTHANDHEARSAYo DEFINITION:Firsthandrepresentationisdefinedasa‘previousrepresentationthatwas

madebyapersonwhohadpersonalknowledgeofanassertedfact’:S62(1)o RULE:Firsthandhearsaymustcomewithperson’sknowledgeofthefact.Anexceptionto

hearsayexclusionaryruleiscreatedunderS62(ie,iffirsthandsatisfied,thenadmissible).o Firsthand=Someoneperceivedtheeventandtoldsomeoneelseandoneofthosetwoare

givingevidence.“hesaid,shesaid…”o TESTFOR‘PERSONALKNOWLEDGE’:Itisenoughifcanbereasonablysupposedthatthe

makerhadpersonalknowledge:RvVincent

Þ STEP1:DETERIMINEIFCIVILORCRIMINALPROCEEEDINGÞ STEP2:DETERMINEAVAILABILITY

Meaningof‘unavailabilityofpersons’;Clause4oftheDictionary:Thelistisexhaustive.

a) Thepersonisdeadb) Thepersonisnotcompetenttogiveevidencec) Wouldbeunlawfulforthepersontogiveevidenced) ProvisionoftheActprohibitstheevidencebeinggivene) Reasonablestepshavebeentakentofindthepersongivingevidencewithno

success.f) Reasonablestepstakentofindthepersonandcompelthepartytogiveevidenceg) Personismentallyorphysicallyunabletogiveevidence.

2A.FIRSTHANDHEARSAYEXCEPTIONINCIVILPROCEEDINGSs63-64

Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepisNOTAVAILABLE…

o S63appliesincivilcaseswherethemakeroffirsthandhearsayisNOTAVAILABLEtogiveevidence.Providesthatarepresentationcanbegivenby

§ apersonwhoperceivedtherepresentationwasbeingmadeor§ Adocumentcontainingarepresentation.

o Noticemustbegiventotheotherpartythatthemakerisnotavailable:s67,DeRosevSA

Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepISAVAILABLE…

o EvenwherethemakeroftherepresentationisAVAILABLEtogiveevidence,S64willallowhearsayevidencetobeusedinsteadofcallingtheperson,ifitwouldcauseundueexpense,delayorunreasonablypracticabletocalltheperson.

o Evidencecanbegiveneitherby- Someonewhoperceivedtherepresentationbeingmade,or

- Documentevidenceoftherepresentation.o S64(3)providesthatifapersonISAVAILABLEANDISTOBECALLEDthenhearsay

maystillbegiveneitherbythemakerorthepersonwhoperceivedtherepresentationtobemade.

2B.FIRSTHANDHEARSAYEXCEPTIONINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSs65-66DocumentaryEvidenceIsNotPermitted(MustBeOral)

Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepisNOTAVAILABLE…

o S65allowsforfirsthandhearsaytobegivenincriminalcaseswherethemakerofthepreviousrepresentationisnotavailabletogiveevidence.

o Noticemustbegiventotheotherpartythatthemakerisnotavailable:s67,DeRosevSA

Ifthemakeroftheprevious1sthandrepISAVAILABLE…

o S66:IfthemakeroftherepresentationisAVAILABLEthereisnoprovisionfornotcallingthewitnessandthusrelyingonthehearsayruleinstead.

o Ie,theymustbecalledfortheperson’sevidencetobeadmissible.o S66(2)makesadmissibleevidenceofthehearsayif‘freshinthememory’.o Requirement:willonlybeadmissibleif,whentherepresentationwasmade,the

occurrenceoftheassertedfactwas‘freshinthememory’ofthepersonwhomadetherepresentation:s66(2A),GrahamvTheQueen(1998)

o Whatis‘freshinthememory’?S66(2A):courtmaytakeintoaccountallmattersitconsideredarerelevant,tothequestion,including(RvXY):

§ Natureoftheeventconcerned§ Ageandhealthoftheperson§ Periodoftimebetweentheoccurrenceoftheassertedfactandthemaking

oftherepresentation.o Freshinthememorydoesn'thavetoberecentorimmediate:Graham

3. MoreREMOTEFORMSOFHEARSAY:s67-75(Notfirsthandhearsay)S69BusinessrecordsS70TagsandLabelsS71ElectronicCommunicationsS72AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderTraditionalLawsandCustoms

NatureofPreviousRepresentation> =FormofFirstHandHearsayAllowedRepresentationsforwhichsomeguaranteeofreliabilityexists–S65(2)

a) Madeunderadutyb) Madeshortlyafterandunlikely

tohavebeenfabricatedc) Highlyprobablyreliabled) Againsttheinterestsofthe

maker;S65(7)

o Oralevidencefromapersonwhowitnessedthemakingoftherepresentation

o Documentaryevidenceisnotsufficient;ConwayvR

Representationsalreadygiveninevidenceinpriorproceedings(subjecttothemakerhavingbeencross-examinedorareasonablyopportunityforcross-examination);S65(3)-(6)

o Documentaryevidenceintheformoftranscriptorrecording.

o Presumablyalsooralevidencefromapersonwhowitnessedthemakingoftherepresentation.

Representationsadducedbyanaccused;S65(8)and(9)

o Documentaryevidenceo Oralevidencefromapersonwho

witnessedthemakingoftherepresentation.

TOPIC7:OPINIONEVIDENCETEMPLATEISSUE:ISTHEOPINIONADMISSIBLE?

• RULE:primafacieopinionsareNOTADMISSIBLE(subjecttoexceptionsandexclusions):S76• Theactdoesnotdefinethetermopinion.• EvidenceofPreviousJudgementsandConvictions-notadmissiblebecauseitsopinion:A

determinationbyacourtisineffecttheexpressionofanopinionbyacourt,whetherbyjudgeorjury,thereforenotadmissible:s91

STEP1:ISTHESTATEMENTANOPNION?

• Distinctionbetweenfactsandopiniono Iftheaccusedwaswellknowntotheidentifyingwitnessbeforethecrimethentheir

identificationismorelikelytobetreatedasamatteroffactratherthanopinion.o Iftheidentifyingwitnessdidnotknowtheaccusedbeforethecrime,thentheir

identificationwillbetreatedasopinion.

STEP2:DOANYEXCEPTIONSAPPLY?(thereformakingtheopinionevidenceadmissible)

A. EXCEPTION:EVIDENCERELEVANTOTHERWISETHANASOPINIONEVIDENCES77• s77statesthat‘theopinionruledoesnotapplytoevidenceofanopinionthatisadmitted

becauseitisrelevantforapurposeotherthanproofoftheexistenceofafactabouttheexistenceofwhichtheopinionwasexpressed.

B. LAYPERSONOPINIONEXCEPTION:S78

• RULE:opinionsoflaywitnessescanbeadmissible:S78.2elementsmustbesatisfiedbeforetheopinionwillbeadmittedasanexceptionunderthisprovision

• REQUIREMENTS:1. Theopinionisbaseduponwitnesses’ownobservations:S78(a)2. Theopinionis‘necessary’inordertounderstandthewitness’stestimony:S78(b)

• Whatis‘NECESSARY’foropinion;HaryvMerrill§ Identityofindividuals,handwriting,orotherthings§ Apparentageofperson§ Speedatwhichtheobjectismoving§ Conditionorstateofsomethingsuchasweatherorroad§ Person’semotionalstateoranger.§ Person’sphysicalcondition§ CharacterevidencewhichisexemptedfromopinionruleunderS110.§ Listisnotexhaustive§ Whereitisdifficultorimpracticaltoseparatewitness’sobservationsfromtheir

opinion,thentheopinionisnecessarytoobtainadequateaccountorunderstanding.

• Whereitisdifficulttoseparateawitness’sobservationsfromhisopinion• Itshouldbenotedhoweverthatalthoughanopinionmaysatisfys78itmuststillsurvivethe

discretionofthetrialjudgebeforeitcouldbeadmitted.Ie,dtillsubjecttodiscretionunderS137:RvVanDyk

C. EXPERTWITNESSOPINIONEXCEPTIONS79

• RULE:Anexpert’sopinionmaybeadmissibleifitsatisfiestherequirementsofs79(1),(which,ifchallenged,willrequireavoirdirehearingaccordingtos189oftheAct.)

• S79(1)REQUIREMENTS:q Theexpertmustpossess‘specialisedknowledge’

§ NotdefinedintheAct.Whetheropinionisbasedonspecialisedknowledgeisaquestionoffact;ASICvAlder:

§ Charteredaccountantwithexperienceinanumberofprivateandpubliccompaniesofferingevidenceofwhatisexpectedofadiligentdirector=specialisedknowledge.

§ Charteredaccountantwithnosuchexperience=notspecialised.

q Thespecialisedknowledgemustbebasedontheexperts‘training,studyorexperience’

§ Awitnessmayqualifyasanexpertonthebasisofeithero ‘training,educationorexperience’

§ Ifopinionisbasedsolelyonexperience,=adhocexpertanditisnecessarytoestablishnatureandextentofexperiencetoestablishspecialisedknowledge.

q Theexpertsopinionmustbe‘whollyorsubstantially’basedontheirspecialised

knowledge’.§ Canonlygiveopinionevidenceonareasofexpertiseandcannotstray

intootherareas.§ Mustdetermine:

1. Whatistheopinionofferedbytheexpert2. Isthatopinionbasedonspecialknowledgefromanareaof

expertise.§ Ifmultipleopinionsareofferedtheneachmustbebasedonthe

specialisedknowledgeoftheexpert

q BasisRulerequirement(expertmustprovidefactsonwhichopinionisbased)§ NOTE-S79doesnotexpresslyadoptastrictbasisrule,asamatterof

practicality,theexpertwillnormallyberequiredtosetoutthefactsuponwhichtheopinionisbasedinordertoallowthecourttoassesswhethertheopinionsatisfiestherequirementsofS79:RamsayvWatson

STEP3:IF1OFTHEEXCEPTIONSAPPLY(therebymakingtheopinionadmissible)DOANYDISCRETIONARYEXCLUSIONSAPPLY(S135orS137)?(therebymakingtheopinioninadmissible)

• OpinionsthatareadmissibleasanexceptionunderS78(laypersonexception)orS79(expert

witness)maybeexcludedbythetrialjudgeintheexerciseoftheirdiscretionarypowers.• Courtcanusediscretiontoexcludeopinionsfromeitherlayorexpertwitnessesiftheyare:

o highlyprejudicialtowardsanaccusedordefendant• insuchcircumstancesitwillbepossibletoarguethattheprobativevalueoftheopinionis

outweighedbyitsprejudicialeffectunderS135orS137.

• RvVanDyk

TOPIC8:ADMISSIONSTEMPLATE

ISSUE:ISTHEADMISSIONADMISSIBLE?RULE:admissionsareprimafacieadmissible(asanexceptiontothehearsayandopinionrules;s81.)

• S81providesthatadmissionsareexceptionstothehearsayandopinionevidencerules.(1)Hearsayruleandopinionruledonotapplytoevidenceofadmissions(2)Hearsayruleandopinionruledonotapplytoevidenceofapreviousrepresentation.

§ Thatwasmadeinrelationtoanadmissionatthetimetheadmissionwasmade,orshortlybeforeorafterthattime,and

§ Towhichitisreasonablynecessarytoreferinordertounderstandtheadmission.

STEP1:ISTHESTATEMENTANADMISSION?• Highlightadmissionanddefinewhyitisanadmission• Istheassertionmadeagainstone’sowninterests?• Whatareadmissions?

o DefinedinDictionaryasapreviousrepresentation…whichisadversetotheperson’sinterestintheoutcomeoftheproceeding.

o Broaddefinitionof‘admission’=bothadmissionsasmerestatementsagainstinterestandfullconfessionstocriminaloffences.

o Examplesofpotentialadmissions:o Expressadmission:“Iwasspeeding”o Expressadmissionrelevanttolitigationinnegligence:“Ishouldhavebeenmorecareful”o Impliedadmission:“Ididn’tmeantohurther”o Impliedadmissionbyconduct:runningawayinresponsetothewords“Stop,Police”,ora

failuretodenyanallegationwhenitwouldbereasonabletoexpectadenialo Tellinglies:EdwardsvR(1993)

STEP2:DOANYEXLUSIONSAPPLY?(thereforemakingtheadmissioninadmissible)

a) GENERALRULESOFEXCLUSION(CIVIL&CRIMINAL)

Þ S82Exclusionofevidenceofadmissionsthatisnotfirsthand

o RULE:admissibleadmissionmustbefirsthand.Ifnot,ieissecondhandorremote,itwillbeexcludedunderthehearsayexclusionaryrule:S82

o S82onlyoperatestorestricttheapplicationofS81tofirsthandadmissions.

Þ S83Admissionsnotadmissibleagainstthirdpartieso theadmissioncanonlybeusedandadmissibleagainstthepersonwhomadeit,nota

thirdparty:S83o Exceptionisifathirdpartyconsents;S83(2).

Þ S84Admissionsinfluencedbyviolenceandotherconducto RULE:s84-admissionsnotadmissibleifinfluencedby

(a) violent,oppressive,inhumanordegradingconduct,whethertowardsapersonwhomadetheadmissionortowardsanother.

(b) threatorconductofthatkind.

o Requirement:onlyappliesifthepartyhasraisedtheissueabouttheadmissionbeingsoinfluencedbyproscribedconduct.

o BurdenOfProof:Onceraised,theburdenfallsonthepartyseekingtoadducetheadmissiontoovercomethethresholdofadmissibility.Partymustproveonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatitwasnotinfluenced

o Whatisoppressiveconduct?RvYeZhang:threatofphysicalviolenceifactnotdone

b) SPECIFICRULESOFEXCLUSION(CRIMINALONLY):Þ S85Admissionsbycriminaldefendantsinthepresenceofinvestigators

o S85,supplementsS84,andappliesonlyincriminalcasesandonlywheretheadmissionwasmadebyadefendant‘inthepresenceofinvestigatingofficials’.

o RULE:S85(2):anadmissionwillnotbeadmissibleunlessitwasmadeincircumstancesthatmakeitunlikelythatitstruthwasadverselyaffected.

o TEST:wouldthecircumstancesinfactadverselyaffectthetruthoftheadmission.o Burdenofproof:theprosecutiono Ifthatburdenisnotdischargedtheadmissionwillbeinadmissibleo ‘Inthepresence’:Itisnotnecessarythattheadmissionbemadewhileapersonisin

custodyorunderarrest,orinapolicestationNichollsvR(2005)o Circumstancesthatmayadverselyaffectthetruth:S85(3)-circumstancesthatthe

courtmusttakeintoaccountindeterminingwhetherthetestins85(2)hasbeensatisfied.§ Thisincludes;Thepersonalcharacteristicsofthedefendant,age,personality,

education,mentalorphysicaldisability,andthemannerofquestioning,includinganythreats,promisesorinducements.Listisnonexhaustive.

o RvDonnelly;depressedmentalstatedidnotaffecttheaccused’sadmissiontohiswife’smurder.

o RvBraun;defendantadmittedtostartingafire,howeverhadhistoryofattentionseekingbehaviourandmentalconditions=truthadverselyaffected

Þ S86Exclusionofrecordsoforalquestioningandmandatoryrecordingofadmissions

o S86(2)excludesadocumentprovidedonbehalfoftheofficial,unlessaccusedacknowledgesthattherecordistrue,bysigning,initiallingorotherwisemarkingthedocument:s86(3).

o However,thisisonlyiftheunsigneddocumentisusedtoproveanadmission.o Note:Audioandvideorecordingsandtranscriptsaren’tdocumentsforthepurposes

ofs86:s86(4)o Policemaynonethelessgiveoralevidenceofanallegedadmissionassumingtobe

excludedbymandatoryrecordingrequirements.

Þ S89SilenceAPersonwhobelievesonreasonablegroundsthattheyaresuspectofhavingbeenpartytoanoffenceisentitledtoremainsilentwhenquestionedbyanypersoninauthorityabouttheoccurrenceoftheoffence:PettyvR

o RULE:noadverseinferencecanbedrawnagainstanaccusedpersonbyreasonoftheirfailuretoanswerquestionsorprovideinformation:S89,PettyvR

o S89operatesasprohibitiononcertaininferencesandasanexclusionaryrule.o Ifapartyhasremainedsilentwhenquestionedduringanofficialinvestigation,that

factcannotbeheldagainsthiminanyway.o Evidencethatapartyfailedtoanswerquestionsoranswered‘nocomment’willoften

beexcludedbecauseitisnotrelevant.o Whatinferencescanwedrawfromsilence?

§ S89(4)Inthissection,inferenceincludes- Aninferenceofconsciousnessofguilt- Inferencerelevanttoaparty’scredibility.

o Failuretomentionadefencelaterreliedon

§ RULE:Noadverseinferencecanbedrawnfromtheearlierfailuretomentionadefence.SanchezvR[2009]

c) DISCRETIONTOEXCLUDEADMISSIONS:

• NOTE:otherdiscretionsstillapply;thisisjustaspecificonetoadmissions• Ifprimafacieadmissible,courtmayexcludeadmissionsincircumstancesof

1. UNFAIRNESS(s90,onlyappliestoadmissions)orEgofunfaircircumstances:

- Theunreliabilityoftheadmission:RvSwaffield;PavicvR(1998)- Forensicdisadvantage:FostervR(1993)- Improperpoliceconduct:VanDerMeervR(1988)- Infringementofdefendant’srights:FostervR(1993)

2. wheretheyhavebeenIMPROPERLYOBTAINED(s138(2),appliestoallevidence).

- Thebalancingexerciseinvolvesaweighingoftwovalues;o Thevalueofadmittingevidencethatwillhelptoconvicttheguiltyo Thevalueofdiscouragingornotcondoningpolicemisconduct.

d) JUDICIALWARNINGS

• withrespecttopotentiallyunreliableevidence,includingadmissions.

TOPIC9:TENDENCYANDCOINCIDENCEEVIDENCETEMPLATEISTHESIMILARFACTEVIDENCE(tendencyorcoincidence)ADMISSIBLE?

• RULE:tendencyandcoincidenceevidenceisinadmissibleunlesscertainconditionsaremetunderS97andS98oftheAct.

ISTHEFACTSIMILAREEVIDENCE?

• DEFINITION:Similarfactevidenceisevidencethatonapreviousoccasionapersonactedinasimilarmannertothatnowallegedincourt.

• 2typesofsimilarfactevidence:1. S97Tendency:

a. evidenceofcharacter,reputation,conductortendencyofapersonthatistenderedtoprovethatapersonhastendencytoactinaparticularway,orhaveaparticularstateofmind.

b. Eg.evidenceofthebehaviourordispositionofapersonthatisadducedtoshowthatapersonhasatendencytoactinaparticularway.

2. S98Coincidence:

a. theoccurrenceoftwoormoreeventswhichistenderedtoprove,havingregardtoanysimilaritiesinevents,itisimprobablethateventsoccurredcoincidently.

• Noticeofintentiontoadducetendencyevidencemustbegiveninwritinghowever,thisnoticecan

bewaivedasperS100.

IDENTIFYIFCIVILORCRIMINALCASECIVILCASES

• RULE:Tendencyandcoincidenceevidencearenotadmissible,unlesstheevidencewill,eitherbyitselforhavingregardtootherevidence,havesignificantprobativevalue.

• (ie,ifaboveissatisfied,thenwillbeadmissible)• CanstillbeexcludedunderS135discretion.• TEST:Whatisrequiredifevidenceistoadmissibleisthatitcouldrationallyaffecttheassessmentof

theprobabilityoftherelevantfactinissuetoasignificantextent:ZaknicvSvelteCorporation;

CRIMINALCASES• RULE:Thetendencyandcoincidenceevidenceisnotadmissibleunless

q ithasSignificantProbativeValueandq itsubstantiallyoutweighsanyprejudicialeffectitmayhaveontheaccused(S101)(ie,ifaboveissatisfied,thenwillbeadmissible,ifnottheninadimissible)

• Similarfactevidencecanbeintheformofpriorconvictions,unprovenallegationsorcanrelatetoactsthatoccurredaftertheeventthatleadtothecharge.

• ‘SignificantProbativeValue’:meansmorethanrelevancebutlessthana‘substantial’degreeofrelevance,andthatitmeansimportantorofconsequence-thereisnoneedforittoestablishastrikingpatternorsimilaritybetweenthechargeactandthedisputeevidence:RvPWD[2010]NSWCCA

• Testfor‘PrejudicialEffect’:whetherthereisariskofanunfairtrial:RvPWD[2010]NSWCCA

o Ifthereisarealriskthattheadmissionofsuchevidencemayprejudicethefairtrialofthecriminalcharge,theinterestsofjusticerequirethetrialjudgetomakeavaluejudgement,notmathematical.

o TheCourtstatedthatthebalancingexerciseunderS101(2)isofthesamenatureasthatunderS137discretion.

o Ifsimilarfactevidenceisadmitted,thenthereisnoscopeforittobeexcludedpursuanttotheexerciseofthediscretioninS137.

• Res98coincidence,ask:o Isitjustmerecoincidenceofdidtheaccusedhaveaspecificstateofmind??o Evidencetoshowcannotamerecoincidence.CGLvDPP2010

• Res97tendency:

o Themorespecificoftheidentifiedsimilaritythemorelikelyitistobeprobativeofatendencytoactinadistinctivewaytodoactsofadistinctivekind.(ie,morelikelytosatisfys97andbeadmissible)

o Themoregeneral,themoredifficultitistodemonstrateatendencythathassignificantprobativevalues.(ielesslikelytosatisfys97andbeadmissible)CGLvDPP2010

SimilarfactevidencewhenNOTDIRECTLYRELEVANTTOFACTINISSUE(circumstantial)

• Tendencyevidenceinregardstosomethingotherthanwhethertheaccusedisguiltyascharged.• Relationshipevidence• Largebulkappearsinsexualoffencecases• Theparadigmcaseinwhichrelationshipevidenceisadmittediswhentheaccusedischargedwitha

sexualoffenceandthereisanallegedhistoryofsexualmisconductbytheaccusedtowardsthecomplainant.

• Insuchcircumstances,theunchargedactsareadmittedtoestablishasexualrelationshipbetweentheparties.

• RvBeserick

TOPIC10:CREDIBILITYANDCHARACTEREVIDENCETEMPLATETRIGGER:DOESTHEEVIDENCERELATETOTHEACCUSED’SCREDIBILITY?

• Ie,evidencefromawitnesspurportingthattheaccusedhaspooreyesightorabadmemory• Characterevidenceregardingtheinclinationofapersontothinkorbehaveinacertainmanner• Thingsthatrelatetobadconducte.g.evidencethatapersonisdishonestetv

ISTHEEVIDENCEONLYRELEVANTFORTHEPURPOSESOFCREDIBILITY?

• S101Adefinescredibility–evidencerelevanttothecredibilityofthewitnessorpersonthat‘isrelevantonlybecauseitaffectstheassessmentofthecredibilityofthewitnessorperson’.

• Identifythepersontowhomthecredibilityisrelated§ S102inregardstocredibilityofwitness

• Includingwitness’sabilitytoobserveorrememberfactsandeventsaboutwhichgivingevidence

§ S108Ainregardstocredibilityofrepresentation(nonwitness)• Includesperson’sabilitytoobserveorrememberfactsandeventsaboutwhichthe

personmadetherepresentation

• Evidencemustsolelyrelatetocredibilitytoapplyunderhere.• Credibilityisnotrelatedtofactinissue,butimpactsonwhetherornotevidenceshouldbe

accepted.ISTHECREDIBILITYEVIDENCEADMISSIBLE?Primafacie,no.

• RULE:Primafacie,thegeneralruleisthatcredibilityevidenceisnotadmissible:S102(appliestowitnesses)orS108A(appliestopeoplewhoarenotwitnesses)

ISSUE:DOANYEXCEPTIONSAPPLY?(thereforemakingthecredibilityevidenceadmissible)A. EXCPETIONINCROSS-EXAMINATIONS103(ORS108A)

• RULE:CredibilityevidencecanbeadmissibleiftheevidencecouldSUBSTANTIALLYAFFECTtheassessmentofthecredibilityofthewitness

• Thecourtistotakemaytakeintoconsiderationaspectsinregardstofailingobligationtotellthetruth.

• Applieswherepersonpreviouslyliedunderoath• Forevidenceto‘Substantiallyaffect’:

o itmusthavehadthepotentialtohavearealbearingupontheassessmentoftheappellant’scredibility,andparticularlytotheappellant’scredibilityinrelationtotheevidencehehadgiven,orwouldgiveattrial:RvEl–Azzi

o itcould‘rationallyaffect’theassessmentoftheircreditorhasthepotentialtohavea‘realbearing’ontheircredibility:RvEl–Azzi

B. SPECIALEXCEPTIONFORPRIORCONVICTIONSOFTHEACCUSED(ONLYFORACCUSED)s104

• S104onlyappliesincriminalproceedingsinadditiontoS103.• Thus,forS104tooperate,itmustbeestablishedthattheevidenceinquestioncould

substantiallyaffecttheassessmentofthecredibilityofthedefendant.• S104appliesincircumstanceswherethedefendanthaselectedtogiveevidence.• RULE:S104(2):AccusedmustNOTbecross-examinedaboutamatterthatisrelevanttothe

assessmentofthecredibilityoftheaccusedUNLESSCOURTGIVESLEAVE

• Despites104(2),S104(3)providesthattheaccusedcanbecrossexaminedwithoutleavebeingrequiredofthecourtwheretheevidencecouldsubstantiallyaffecttheircreditabilityandthematterrelatesto:o Whethertheaccusedisbiasedo Hasamotivetobeuntruthfulo Hasmadeapriorinconsistentstatemento Isunabletobeawareof,oro Recallmatterstowhichtheirevidencerelates.

C. FINALITYRULEEXCEPTION(ifcrossexaminerisnothappywithanswer,usuallycan’tlead,butcando

soifaskforleavetocontradictanswer)• Lookatwherecross-examinerwantstoleadevidenceafternotgettingresponsetheywant• Ifthecrossexaminerdoesnotgettheanswerdesired,theycannotleadevidencetocontradict

theresponse.• RULE:Inordertoleadevidence,leaveofthecourtisusuallyrequired,howeveraspers106(2)

leaveisnotrequiredwherethereis:§ Biasorhasmotivetobeuntruthful§ Priorconviction§ Priorinconsistentstatement§ Unabletobeawareofmatterstowhichtheirevidencerelates

Ø NotcapableofgivingtrueaccountbecauseofmentalinfirmityØ Wherethisisthecasethencanleadevidence(medical)inrebuttal

§ Madefalserepresentationwhileunderobligationtothetellthetruth• Noteifneitherthencanjustgostraighttoleaveaspect

D. RE-ESTABLISHINGCREDIBILITYDURINGRE-EXAMINATION

• RULE:S108(1)statesthatthecredibilityruledoesnotapplytoevidenceadducedinre-examinationofawitness

• Application:Wherethecredibilityofawitnesshasbeendamagedduringcross-examination,S108providesanopportunityforthewitness’scredibilitytoberestoredduringre-examination(thereforemakingcredibilityevidenceadmissible).

• S39requirement:Thiscanonlyariseincircumstanceswherethewitnesshasbeencrossexaminedaboutcredibility(oneoftheaboveexceptionsapplied)andthereisaneedtoclarifythewitnessesresponse.

• 2furtherexceptionsunders108(3):IFADDUCINGPRIORCONSISTENTSTATEMENT

o S108(3)wherepriorconsistentstatementbeingadducedcredibilityevidenceisadmissibleif

Ø EvidenceastoapriorinconsistentstatementhasbeenadmittedORØ Itisorwillbesuggestedthatwitnesstolduntruth

o Leavehoweverisrequired

E. GOODCHARACTEREVIDENCEBYACCUSEDs110• Lookatwhereaccusedisleadingcharacterevidence• RULE:theaccusedcanleadevidencethroughtheirowntestimonyorthatofothersthatthey

areofgoodcharacter:S110o Thisalsoallowstheprosecutiontoleadrebuttalevidencetoestablishnotofgood

character• S110requiresproofofasubjectiveintenttoraisegoodcharacterbeforeitcouldbeheldthat

evidencehadbeen‘adducedbyadefendanttoprovegoodcharacter’;RvSkaf

• AsperS112leaveofthecourtisrequiredforCROSS-EXAMINATIONinregardstogoodcharacter(seeconsiderationsunderS192)

F. CREDIBILITYEVIDENCEGIVENBYEXPERTSONCREDIBILITYs108C

• 108Canexceptiontogivingofcredibilityevidenceexistswhereanexpertgivesevidence.• S108Cexpresslystatesthattheareasofexpertisethatcanqualifyawitnessinthisregard

includespecialisedknowledgeofchilddevelopmentandchildbehaviour,includingtheimpactofabuseonchildren.

• S108Cisofparticularrelevanceinchildsexoffenceswherethewitnessisattackedonthebasisofaseeminglackofcoherenc

PROTECTIONTOCOMPLAINANTSINSEXUALOFFENCECASES(NOTTHATIMPORTANT)

• S341-343andS353oftheCriminalProcedureAct2009,prohibitevidenceofthereputationofthecomplaintinsexoffencematterswithrespecttochastity.o Limitationsonlyapplytocomplainants,nototherwitnesses.o Objectiveistoovercomenegativegeneralisationsthatareoftenformedaboutpeoplebased

ontheirsexualexperiences.• Actualsexualhistoryisrestricted(notabsolutelyprohibited)

§ Canbegivenwithleaveofcourt§ Canonlybegrantedwhereevidenceisofsubstantialrelevancetofactsinissueoris

apropermatterforcrossastocredibility§ S352statesthatwillonlybepropermatterforcreditwhereitislikelytomaterially

impairconfidenceinreliabilityofevidenceofthecomplainant• Mustbestatedthathistorydoesnotsupportaninferencethatcomplainantismorelikelyto

haveconsentedtosexualactivitytowhichchargerelates

TOPIC13:PRIVILEGESTEMPLATE

ISTHECOMMUNICATIONPRIVILEGED?• RULE:Onceprotectedbytheprivilegethecommunicationordocumentcannotbeadducedincourt

asevidenceiftheclientobjectstoitsadmission.

• S132andS134providethatprivilegedinformationisprotectedasthecourtisimposedwiththeobligationtosatisfyitselfthatapartyisawareofarighttoclaimprivilegeandmustdisregardwrongfullyadmittedevidenceprotectedbyaprivilege.

• UnderS132thecourtmustbesatisfiedthatapartywhohasarighttoclaimaprivilegeisawareofthatright.

o S131Aprovidesthatthecourtmustdetermineanobjectiontodisclosurerequirement.o Disclosurerequirementsare:

§ Summonsorsubpoena§ Pretrialdiscovery§ Nonpartydiscovery§ Interrogatories

§ Noticetoproduce§ Requesttoproduce

document§ Searchwarrant

WHATPRIVILGEAPPLIES?

1. Clientlegalprivilege(subjecttoexceptions)

2. Privilegeagainstself-incrimination

3. Matterofstate4. Settlementnegotiations.

1 CLIENTLEGALPRIVILEGE

• RULE:Clientlegalprivilegeprotectsconfidentialinformationbetweentheclientandlawyerandpromotesfulldisclosureattheexpenseofaccesstoallrelevantevidence:BakervCampbell

• S117defines(IDENTIFYQUICKLY).Þ CLIENT,

- verybroaddefinitionandalsoincludesalawyer’semployer,thuscoveringin-houselawyers

- Noretainerisrequired;HawksfordvHawksford.

Þ CONFIDENTIALCOMMUNICATIONforthepurposesofprivilege- Communicationisnotdefined- BakervCampbell:oralorwrittenisincluded.- RvSharp;statedthatgenerallythepresenceofathirdpartyduringthecommunication

willundermineitsconfidentiality;thisisnotthecasewherethepresenceofthethirdpartycouldnotbeavoided;RvBrahamandMason.

Þ CONFIDENTIALDOCUMENT

- RULE:AffidavitsandwitnessstatementsfiledandservedinpreviouscourtproceedingsagainstapartywhoisnottherespondentinthecurrentproceedingsarenotprivilegedbecausetheylackconfidentialityunderS117.

- ACCCvCadburySchweppes

• RULE:S118andS119,bothprotectconfidentialcommunicationsbetweenclientandlawyerandconfidentialdocumentspreparedbytheclientorlawyer

§ solongasthedominantpurposeofthecommunicationordocument§ wastoobtainlegaladvice§ orprepareforanticipatedlegislation.

• Dominantpurpose:mightbemorethanonepurposeforthecommunication:EricPrestonPtyLtdv

EurozSecurities

• LEGALADVICE:s118providesthattheevidencecannotbeadducedwherethereisaconfidentialcommunicationbetweenparties,inwhichthedominantpurposeistoobtaintolegaladvice.

• LITIGATION:S119providesevidencecannotbeadducedifthecourtfindsitwouldresultindisclosureof

- Confidentialcommunicationbetweenaclientandanotherperson,orbetweenalawyeractingfortheclientandanotherperson,OR

- ThecontentsofaconfidentialdocumentthatwaspreparedForthedominantpurposeofaclientforaproceeding.

*APPLYTOFACTUALCIRCUMSTANCESINEXAM*

• THINGSTONOTE:Originalandcopiesofprivilegeddocuments

o Acopyofaprivilegeddocumentisalsoprivileged.o Alsoacopyofanoriginaldocumentthatisprivilegedcanbecomeprivilegedifcopiedfora

purposeasperS118;SendyvCth.o Anoriginaldocumentthatisnotprivilegeddoesnotbecomeprivilegedbecausethecopied

documentisprivilegedo Ifadocisnotprivileged,butthenmakeacopyofthis,thenthiscopycanbeprivileged(evenif

originalisnot)

1A.EXCEPTIONS:LOSSOFCLIENTLEGALPRIVILEGEA. S121LOSSOFCLIENTLEGALPRIVILEGEGENERALLY

• RULE:Theprivilegewillbelostwhen:o theclientorpartyhasdiedandtheevidenceisrelevanttothequestionoftheclient’sor

party’sintentionsorcompetenceinlawo iftheresultofnotadmittingtheevidencewouldbethatthecourtwouldbeprevented

fromenforcinganorderofanAustraliancourt.

B. S122–Clientcanwaivetheprivilege(throughconsentandinconsistentbehaviour)• RULE:Confidentialcommunication/documentwillloosetheprotectionofprivilegeif:

o thereisconsensualdisclosure:section122(1)oro iftheybehaveinamannerwhichisinconsistentwiththeprivilege:S122(2).

• Egofinconsistentbehaviours122(3)(a) clientorpartyknowinglyorvoluntarilydisclosedthesubstanceoftheevidenceto

anotherperson.(b) substanceoftheevidencehasbeendisclosedwiththeexpressorimpliedconsentof

theclientorotherparty.C. S123–LossofClientPrivilege-accused

• S123-ifyouareanaccused,itwon’tpreventlegalprivilege.• RULE:Undersection123confidentialcommunicationsordocumentswillnotbeprotectedbyclient

legalprivilegeiftheyarerequiredbythedefendantinacriminalproceeding.Unlesstheconfidentialcommunicationsordocumentsaresoughtfromaco-accused.

• Section123doesnotapplytopretrialinvestigationsordiscoveryassection131Adoesnotapplytosection123.

D. S124Lossofclientprivilege-jointclients

• S124onlyappliestocivilproceedings• RULE:Can’thavelegalprivilegewithjointclients.• Needtoseeklegaladviceindependently.• Inthesecircumstances,communicationsmadebyanyofthepartiestothelawyerorconfidential

documentspaidatthedirectionorrequesttoalawyerwillnotbeprotected.

E. S125–Lossofclientlegalprivilege–misconduct/CommissionofaCrime• RULE:Privilegeislostwherethecommunicationwasinthefurtheranceofacrimeorfraudor

relatedtoanabuseofpower.• CoxvRailton

F. S126–Lossofclientprivilege-relatedcommunicationsanddocuments

• RULE:documentsthatareinsomewayRELATEDtoadocumentorcommunicationNOTprotectedunderprivilegebyvirtueofS121-5arealsonotprotected.

G. S127ReligiousConfessions

• S127apersonwhoreceivesconfessioncanelecttherighttoremainsilentinregardstogivingofevidence

2)Doesnotapplyifcommunicationinvolvedreligiousconfessionwasmadeforacriminalpurpose4)Religiousconfessionmeansconfessionmadebypersontoamemberoftheclergyinmember'sprofessionalcapacityaccordingtotheritualofthechargeorreligiousdenominationconcerned

2.PRIVILEGEAGAINSTSELF-INCRIMINATION• ISSUE:Whathappensifyouappearasawitnessandyouareaskedaquestionincrossexamination

thatrequiresanincriminatinganswer?Youcanclaimtheprivilegeagainstselfincrimination• RULE:S128permitsawitnesstoobjecttoansweringaquestionthatrequiresanincriminating

answer.Can’tuseevidenceinanotherproceedingthatcouldincriminatethem(Exceptiontoforeignlaw.)Courtmustdecidewhetherornotanansweristobecompelledwiththecertificateornot.

• REQUIREMENT:UndertheActthewitnessreceivesaCERTIFICATEpreventingtheirincriminating

answersbeinguseagainsttheminanothercourthearing.o Witnessmustfirstobjecttoansweringaquestionbeforethecourtwilldeterminewhether

therearereasonablegroundsfortheobjection.o Ifthewitnessisnotawarethattheycanclaimtheprivilege,thenaccordingtoS132,the

courtmustsatisfyitselfthatthewitnessorpartyisawareoftheeffectofS128.o Courtmustdeterminewhethertheobjectionisbasedonreasonablegrounds;S128(2).o Reasonable=mustbea“realandappreciable”dangerthattheanswerwillincriminatethe

witness:RvBoyles

• S128privilegeagainstselfincriminationdoesnotapplyto:o anaccusedwhoisawitness:s128(10)o corporations:s187

3.MATTERSOFSTATEPRIVILEGES130

• S130privilegeoperatestopreventthedisclosureofrelevantevidenceonthegroundthatsuchdisclosurewouldbecontrarytopublicinterest.

• Test:Thesensitiveevidencethataffectsamatterofstatewillbeexcludedifthepublicinterestinadmittingitisoutweighedbythepublicinterestinpreservingitsconfidentiality

• Eg’sofmattersofstate(S130(4)):

(i)nationalsecurityandinternationalrelations

(ii)relationsbetweentheCommonwealthandaStateorrelationsbetweenStates

(iii)interferencewiththeinvestigationorprosecutionofanoffence

(iv)interferencewiththeinvestigationoroutcomeofcivilproceedings.

(v) identityofaconfidentialsourceof informationinrelationtotheenforcementofCthor

Statelaws

(vi)prejudicingthefunctionsoftheCthgovernmentorastategovernment.

• S130ExclusionofEvidenceofMattersofState.

o Seenotes

4.OTHERPRIVILEGESS131SettlementNegotiations

• Seenotes