EVIDENCE

Question 1

What is legal privilege and why is it important in evidence law?

Answer 1

Legal privilege refers to the legal right to withhold certain evidence from being disclosed in court. It protects communications in trusted relationships (e.g., lawyer-client, doctor-patient). It ensures confidentiality, encourages full disclosure, promotes fairness, and supports effective legal advice. It’s both a rule of admissibility and a shield from compulsory disclosure.

Question 2

What are the five main types of privilege under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)?

Answer 2

1. Client Legal Privilege (s118–119)
2. Professional Confidential Relationship Privilege (s126A–126G)
3. Sexual Assault Communications Privilege (CPA s295–306)
4. Religious Confessions (s127)
5. Public Interest Immunity (s130)

Question 3

What is the dominant purpose test under s118 EA?

Answer 3

The dominant purpose test is used to determine whether a communication or document is protected by Client Legal Privilege. In Esso v FCT (1999), the High Court defined “dominant purpose” as the ruling, prevailing, or most influential purpose for creating the communication/document.

Question 4

What are the two types of Client Legal Privilege under the Evidence Act?

Answer 4

1. Advice Privilege (s118): Confidential communications made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.
2. Litigation Privilege (s119): Confidential communications or documents made for the dominant purpose of anticipated or ongoing legal proceedings.

Question 5

What happens if a client’s privilege is accidentally waived by their lawyer?

Answer 5

Privilege is not waived if disclosure was accidental and the client did not authorize it. Disclosure by mistake does not constitute waiver. See Carter v Managing Partner (1995) and Kennedy v Wallace (2004).

Question 6

What is Professional Confidential Relationship Privilege (PCRP) under s126A?

Answer 6

PCRP protects confidential communications in a professional relationship (e.g., doctor-patient, social worker-client). It exists only in statute, not at common law. The court uses a balancing test under s126B to assess whether the public interest in preserving confidentiality outweighs the need for the evidence.

Question 7

What factors must the court consider under s126B EA when deciding whether to uphold PCRP?

Answer 7

• Probative value of the evidence
• Gravity of the cause of action
• Whether alternative evidence is available
• Harm from disclosure
• Public interest in confidentiality

Question 8

How did R v Young (1999) influence sexual assault communication privilege?

Answer 8

After a counselor was jailed for refusing to hand over notes, R v Young (1999) led to special protections under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss295–306, shielding victim-counselor communications in sexual assault cases.

Question 9

What is Public Interest Immunity under s130 of the Evidence Act?

Answer 9

PII protects evidence from being disclosed if doing so would harm the public interest (e.g., national security, undercover police identities). The court balances competing interests: the value of the evidence vs. the harm disclosure would cause. It is not personal and cannot be waived.

Question 10

What are the key steps for a court when considering s130 public interest immunity?

Answer 10

1. Decide if the document is relevant
2. Identify the public interest in non-disclosure
3. Assess if it’s a valid public interest
4. Weigh public interest in non-disclosure vs disclosure
5. Decide which is greater

Question 11

What is the difference between documents and witness testimony in terms of court presentation?

Answer 11

Documents and real evidence are adduced or presented, rather than testified to. Unlike witnesses, documents can’t swear oaths or be cross-examined, so the focus is on authentication and admissibility rather than credibility.

Question 12

How does Uniform Evidence Law allow authentication of documents without a witness?

Answer 12

Under s58(1) and s183, courts can infer authenticity from the document’s appearance or context. This means some documents can be self-authenticating (e.g., payslips, government forms), bypassing the need for a witness to verify them.

Question 13

What is the legal definition of a document under the Evidence Act?

Answer 13

Per the EA Dictionary, a document includes any record of information, including writing, symbols, sounds, images, maps, emails, USBs, and digital data. Even unsent texts can qualify (Nichol v Nichol [2017] QSC 220).

Question 14

What is the significance of Nichol v Nichol [2017] regarding electronic documents?

Answer 14

An unsent text was accepted as an informal will. The court found it was a document that expressed the deceased’s testamentary intentions, even though it wasn’t signed or witnessed — confirming that digital communications can be legally valid documents.

Question 15

What does s48 of the Evidence Act cover?

Answer 15

s48 governs proof of contents of documents. Parties can:
- Tender the original (s48(1)(a))
- Tender a copy (s48(1)(b))
- Provide oral evidence of contents (s48(1)(a))
- Tender a transcript (s48(1)(c))
- Use a summary for voluminous documents (s50)

Question 16

When can a summary of a document be admitted under s50 EA?

Answer 16

With leave of the court, if the document is too complex or voluminous to be tendered in full. The summary must fairly represent the original content.

Question 17

What is the rule about unavailable documents under s48(4) EA?

Answer 17

If a document is unavailable (lost, destroyed, inaccessible), contents may be proven through copies, summaries, or oral evidence. The court must be satisfied it was genuinely unavailable.

Question 18

How does the EA define an unavailable document?

Answer 18

Part 2 Dictionary, Clause 5: A document is unavailable if:
- It is lost despite reasonable search
- It was destroyed without bad faith
- It would be impractical to produce
- Its production might expose someone to liability
- A third party refuses to provide it

Question 19

What was held in R v Cassar & Sleiman [1999] regarding lost motel records?

Answer 19

The motel’s original registration form was lost. The court accepted secondary evidence via police running sheets and oral recollections, relying on s48(4) and s32 (memory refreshment). The form was considered a business record under s69.

Question 20

What is s32 of the Evidence Act about?

Answer 20

s32 allows a witness to refresh their memory using a document during testimony, but only with court leave. The document must have been made when the event was fresh in memory and considered accurate.

Question 21

When can prior statements be read in court under s33 and s34 EA?

Answer 21

• s33: In-court reading by the witness of their own prior statement
• s34: Reading by others if the original witness is unavailable
  These support accurate recollection and reliability of evidence.

Question 22

What are the rules for cross-examining a witness using a prior inconsistent statement?

Answer 22

Under s43, the witness must be shown the document and asked if they stand by their current account. If they deny the inconsistency, further evidence may be introduced to prove it. s44 restricts use of other people’s statements about the witness.

Question 23

What happened in Moore v Goldhagen regarding cross-examination?

Answer 23

The court ruled that a police incident report used in cross-examination should have been shown to the witness beforehand. This emphasized procedural fairness in revealing prior statements.

Question 24

What case illustrates issues around digital records as documents on the dark web?

Answer 24

DPP v Hicks (No 4) [2024] — Communications with a hitman via the dark web were summarised by a journalist and converted by police into a PDF. The court had to determine whether those summaries constituted documents under the EA.

Question 25

How can courts inspect evidence under s53 EA?

Answer 25

s53 allows judges to order demonstrations, experiments, or inspections, considering factors like relevance, accuracy, and potential prejudice. The jury must be present, and parties have the right to attend. It doesn’t apply to in-court demonstrations.

Question 26

What did Evans v R [2007] HCA 59 clarify about in-court demonstrations?

Answer 26

It clarified that in-court demonstrations do not fall under s53, which applies to external inspections. It also reaffirmed that courts must assess the fairness and evidentiary value of such displays.

Question 27

What’s the key distinction between documents and real evidence?

Answer 27

Documents contain stored information (e.g., records, texts), while real evidence refers to physical objects (e.g., weapons, clothing). Documents may be admitted based on content; real evidence is admitted based on inspection or viewing.

Question 28

When can a machine-generated document be admitted?

Answer 28

If it’s reliably produced (e.g., scanned copy, computer record), and there's no suggestion of tampering, courts can accept it under s48(1)(b) or (c).

Question 29

What is the general rule under s12 of the Evidence Act regarding who may testify?

Answer 29

Under s12 EA, every person is presumed competent to give evidence unless proven otherwise. This includes adults, children, and people with cognitive impairments, provided they can understand questions and give rational answers.

Question 30

Are corporations or animals competent to give evidence under s12 EA?

Answer 30

Corporations can give evidence through representatives (e.g., officers, employees), but animals are not competent witnesses.

Question 31

What is the difference between competence and compellability?

Answer 31

- Competence = legal ability to give evidence - Compellability = whether the person can be forced to give evidence A person can be competent but not compellable (e.g., close family in criminal cases: s18 EA).

Question 32

When is a person not competent to give evidence?

Answer 32

A person is not competent if they cannot understand the obligation to tell the truth, or if they cannot understand or respond to questions in a rational way. See s13 EA.

Question 33

What are vulnerable witnesses and what special provisions exist for them?

Answer 33

Vulnerable witnesses include children, people with cognitive impairments, and victims of trauma. Protections include: - Pre-recorded testimony - Screens - Support persons - Closed courts

Question 34

What are the exceptions to compellability under s18 EA?

Answer 34

Close family members (spouse, de facto partner, parent, child, sibling) may object to giving evidence in criminal proceedings against an accused. The court must consider s18(6) factors including likelihood of harm to the relationship.

Question 35

What is the right to object under s18(5) EA and how is it exercised?

Answer 35

A witness who is a close family member can object to being compelled. If they object, the court must decide (under s18(6)) whether to excuse them based on harm to the witness or the relationship vs the importance of the evidence.

Question 36

What is the process of examination-in-chief?

Answer 36

It is the initial questioning of a witness by the party who called them. The purpose is to elicit relevant evidence without leading questions on contentious matters. Leading is only allowed for background or undisputed facts.

Question 37

What are permissible types of questions in cross-examination?

Answer 37

In cross-examination, parties can ask leading questions to challenge the witness's version of events, test credibility, and reveal inconsistencies. They may suggest alternative explanations or motives.

Question 38

What is the purpose of re-examination?

Answer 38

Re-examination allows the calling party to clarify or rebut issues raised during cross-examination. New topics cannot be introduced unless allowed by the court.

Question 39

What is the rule in Browne v Dunn (1894)?

Answer 39

If a party intends to later challenge a witness's testimony or accuse them of lying, they must put that version of events to the witness during cross-examination. Failure to do so is procedurally unfair and may lead to exclusion of that challenge.

Question 40

What are the consequences of not complying with Browne v Dunn?

Answer 40

- The opposing party may be denied the chance to introduce contradictory evidence - The court may give a jury direction to treat the late contradiction as less credible - It may affect procedural fairness and admissibility

Question 41

What are some examples of vulnerable witness adaptations in practice?

Answer 41

- Screens or remote video links to avoid direct confrontation - Intermediaries to rephrase questions - Support persons present during questioning - Recorded statements used in place of live testimony (especially for children)

Question 42

What does s13 of the EA say about children giving evidence?

Answer 42

Children are presumed competent unless proven otherwise. The court must assess if they understand the difference between truth and lies and can respond appropriately. They need not understand the formal oath.

Question 43

Can a judge call a witness on their own motion?

Answer 43

Yes, in rare circumstances and usually in inquisitorial-style hearings (e.g., coronial inquests), but in adversarial trials, it’s unusual and may compromise impartiality.

Question 44

What is the process of not calling or questioning a witness?

Answer 44

- In civil cases: strategic decisions may be made not to call certain witnesses - In criminal cases: prosecution may avoid calling a witness whose evidence is unreliable Failure to call a key witness may allow an adverse Jones v Dunkel inference.

Question 45

What is the right to silence and why is it protected in law?

Answer 45

The right to silence allows an accused person to refuse to answer questions pre-trial and at trial. It supports the presumption of innocence, prevents self-incrimination, and upholds the accusatorial nature of criminal justice.

Question 46

What sections of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) govern the right to silence?

Answer 46

- s89: Silence during police questioning - s89A: Silence during police questioning when special caution is given (NSW only) - s20: Silence at trial — prevents adverse inference solely from accused not testifying

Question 47

What is the rule under s89 EA regarding silence during police questioning?

Answer 47

s89 states that no adverse inference can be drawn if the accused remains silent during police questioning. The silence is not admissible as evidence of guilt.

Question 48

What is the purpose of s89A EA and when does it apply?

Answer 48

s89A (NSW only) allows adverse inferences to be drawn from pre-trial silence only if: - The accused has received a special caution - A legal practitioner was present - The accused fails to mention a fact they later rely on in trial

Question 49

What are the requirements for a s89A special caution to be valid?

Answer 49

- It must be given in the presence of a lawyer - The accused must be told that silence may harm their defence - It only applies in serious indictable offences in NSW

Question 50

What does s20 of the Evidence Act say about silence at trial?

Answer 50

The court must not suggest guilt merely because the accused does not give evidence. No adverse inference is allowed solely based on failure to testify. See Azzopardi v The Queen (2001).

Question 51

What did Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) say about silence?

Answer 51

Pre-EA case: If only the accused could explain something and they remained silent, the jury could infer guilt. Now overridden by s20 for NSW — no inference allowed just from silence at trial.

Question 52

How did Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) clarify s20 EA?

Answer 52

It confirmed that no direction should be given to the jury suggesting guilt can be inferred from silence at trial. The High Court emphasized that silence is a legal right, not suspicious behavior.

Question 53

What happened in Dyers v The Queen (2002) regarding silence?

Answer 53

The High Court criticized improper jury directions that suggested Dyers’ silence was suspicious. The case reaffirmed that s20 prohibits drawing adverse inferences from silence at trial in NSW.

Question 54

What is Jones v Dunkel (1959) and how is it applied?

Answer 54

If a party fails to call a witness who could reasonably explain or support their case, the court may infer the witness would not have helped them. Applies to civil and criminal cases but not to silence at trial under s20.

Question 55

Can silence ever be used against an accused in NSW?

Answer 55

Yes, under s89A, if special caution conditions are met. Otherwise, under s89 and s20, silence cannot be used to infer guilt.

Question 56

What protections exist when a person claims the privilege against self-incrimination during proceedings?

Answer 56

Under s128 EA, a witness can object to answering questions that may incriminate them. If compelled, the court may issue a certificate making the compelled evidence inadmissible against them in future proceedings.

Question 57

What is required for a court to override a s128 objection and compel an answer?

Answer 57

The court must find that the interests of justice require the evidence. If compelled, a certificate under s128(7) must be granted to protect the witness from future use of that evidence.

Question 58

What does a s128 certificate do?

Answer 58

It protects a witness from having compelled evidence used against them in later proceedings (criminal, civil, administrative), except for offences like perjury. It only applies to the specific evidence given under compulsion.

Question 59

What did R v Apostilides (1984) clarify about calling witnesses?

Answer 59

The prosecution has discretion in deciding which witnesses to call. However, if key witnesses are withheld without explanation, the defence may raise concerns or seek a Jones v Dunkel inference.

Question 60

What strategic risk does silence pose for defendants, despite legal protections?

Answer 60

Even though courts can’t infer guilt from silence (s20), juries may psychologically interpret silence negatively. Defence lawyers often weigh this risk when deciding whether the accused should testify.

Question 61

What is the first stage of admissibility in evidence law?

Answer 61

Relevance is the first stage. Under s55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), evidence is only admissible if it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue in the proceeding.

Question 62

What does s55 of the Evidence Act provide?

Answer 62

s55 defines relevant evidence as that which, if accepted, could rationally affect the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, directly or indirectly.

Question 63

What does s56 of the Evidence Act provide?

Answer 63

s56 states that relevant evidence is admissible, subject to other provisions in the Act (e.g., hearsay, opinion, credibility rules). If not relevant, it is inadmissible.

Question 64

What is meant by a “fact in issue”?

Answer 64

A fact in issue is a key fact that the party must prove (or disprove) to succeed. It forms part of the elements of a cause of action, defence, or charge. The relevance of evidence is always measured against facts in issue.

Question 65

What does “rationally affects the assessment of probability” mean in s55?

Answer 65

It means the evidence must be logically connected to the fact in issue in a way that affects how likely it is to be true. It does not have to prove the fact — just influence the probability even slightly.

Question 66

Can evidence be both directly and indirectly relevant?

Answer 66

Yes. Directly relevant evidence goes straight to a fact in issue (e.g., eyewitness testimony). Indirectly relevant evidence supports another fact that makes the fact in issue more or less probable (e.g., motive, opportunity).

Question 67

What is the significance of Papakosmas v The Queen (1999)?

Answer 67

The High Court held that prior consistent statements by a deceased victim were relevant because they made her version of events more probable. Relevance was satisfied even though the statement was not independent confirmation.

Question 68

What principle was clarified in Smith v The Queen (2001)?

Answer 68

Evidence about prior threats made by the accused to the victim was held relevant. It helped prove motive and intent, even though it didn’t directly prove guilt. This confirms the broad scope of relevance under s55.

Question 69

What did Evans v R (2007) confirm about relevance?

Answer 69

Evans' confessional statements were challenged due to coercion. The High Court reinforced that evidence must be rationally probative and not simply “prejudicial.” Relevance is about logical connection, not credibility.

Question 70

How does relevance relate to the other stages of admissibility?

Answer 70

Relevance is the gateway test. Once evidence is relevant under s55, it may be admitted — but it must still pass exclusionary rules (e.g., hearsay, opinion, tendency, credibility) and judicial discretion (e.g., s135, s137).

Question 71

Can evidence be excluded even if relevant?

Answer 71

Yes. Relevance only makes evidence potentially admissible. It can still be excluded under provisions like: - s135: General discretionary exclusion - s137: Prejudicial to accused - Hearsay, opinion, tendency rules

Question 72

Why is relevance described as a low threshold?

Answer 72

Because the evidence need not be conclusive — it only needs to minimally influence the assessment of probability. Courts interpret relevance broadly, but other rules narrow admissibility.

Question 73

What happens if a party fails to link their evidence to a fact in issue?

Answer 73

The evidence is inadmissible under s56. Courts may exclude it or strike it from the record. Judges will ask: "What issue does this evidence go to?" If unclear, it will not be admitted.

Question 74

How is relevance tested in a problem question or court setting?

Answer 74

Ask: 1. What is the fact in issue? 2. How does this evidence affect the probability of that fact? 3. Is the connection rational and logical? If yes, it is relevant under s55.

Question 75

What is the relationship between relevance and reliability?

Answer 75

They are separate concepts. Relevance is about logical connection to facts in issue. Reliability relates to whether the evidence is credible or trustworthy — which affects weight, not admissibility (unless excluded by another rule).

Question 76

What is the hearsay rule under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)?

Answer 76

Under s59 EA, evidence is inadmissible if it is a representation made out of court by a person, and is used to prove the truth of the facts asserted in that representation.

Question 77

What is the key rationale for excluding hearsay evidence?

Answer 77

Hearsay is excluded because the original speaker is not in court to be cross-examined. This undermines the reliability and fairness of the adversarial process.

Question 78

What is the difference between hearsay and original evidence?

Answer 78

* Hearsay: Used to prove the truth of the statement (e.g., “She said he was guilty” → to prove guilt) * Original evidence: Admitted for another purpose (e.g., to show what was said, not that it was true — e.g., to show state of mind or notice)

Question 79

What is an “unintended assertion” under the hearsay rule?

Answer 79

Statements not intended to assert anything can fall outside s59. For example, a person screaming "Get away!" may be admitted to show fear, not as a factual claim. These are not hearsay.

Question 80

What is the first step when applying the hearsay rule under s59?

Answer 80

1. Identify the representation 2. Ask: Is it made out of court? 3. Is it being used to prove the truth of what it says? If yes to all, s59 applies unless an exception is triggered.

Question 81

What are the key exceptions to the hearsay rule in the Evidence Act?

Answer 81

* First-hand hearsay: ss 63–66 * Contemporaneous statements about state of mind: s66A * Documents and business records: ss 69–71 * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws: s72 * Admissions and representations: s81, s60 * Tags/labels: s70

Question 82

What is first-hand hearsay under ss63–66 EA?

Answer 82

A representation made by someone with personal knowledge, now repeated in court by another (or the same person) but out of court. May be admissible if: * Maker is unavailable (s65) * Or if available, but s66 applies

Question 83

When is first-hand hearsay admissible under s65?

Answer 83

When the maker is unavailable, and one of the following applies: * The statement was against interest * It was made in distress * It was made in duty * It was fresh in memory (reliability factor)

Question 84

What makes a witness “unavailable” under the EA Dictionary?

Answer 84

Unavailability includes death, incapacity, refusal to testify, or practical difficulty in locating or securing the witness’s presence. Must be proven on facts.

Question 85

What is the test under s66 for admitting first-hand hearsay when the witness is available?

Answer 85

The hearsay is admissible if the occurrence of the asserted fact was fresh in the person's memory when they made the statement, and the circumstances make it likely to be reliable.

Question 86

What is s66A and how does it operate?

Answer 86

s66A creates a special hearsay exception for contemporaneous statements about a person's health, feelings, intentions, knowledge or state of mind. These are admissible regardless of availability.

Question 87

What does s69 cover in relation to documentary hearsay?

Answer 87

s69 allows the admission of business records that were made in the course of a business for business purposes. The person who supplied the info must have had personal knowledge, or got it from someone who did.

Question 88

What are the criteria for a business record to be admissible under s69?

Answer 88

1. Created in the course of business 2. For a business purpose 3. From someone with direct knowledge or from someone reliable 4. Not created for legal proceedings specifically

Question 89

What is the hearsay exception in s72?

Answer 89

s72 allows for evidence of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs, even if hearsay. It recognizes oral traditions and cultural forms of evidence as admissible.

Question 90

What is the role of s60 EA (non-hearsay purpose)?

Answer 90

s60 allows a representation initially admitted for a non-hearsay purpose (e.g., to show why a person acted a certain way) to be used for hearsay purposes if it’s relevant to a fact in issue. Opened up after Adam v The Queen.

Question 91

What happened in Adam v The Queen (2001) regarding s60?

Answer 91

The High Court ruled that if evidence is admissible for a non-hearsay purpose, it can also be used as evidence of the truth under s60. This led to concerns and the insertion of s101A to limit credibility evidence use.

Question 92

What are the limitations of s60 under the current law?

Answer 92

s60 cannot be used to circumvent the hearsay rule. If the primary reason for adducing the evidence is to prove the truth, s59 applies unless another exception is triggered.

Question 93

What’s an example of evidence admissible under s60?

Answer 93

An accused claims they acted in self-defence after being told they were going to be attacked. The statement itself may not be true, but it’s relevant to state of mind (s60), and can then be used to prove truth too.

Question 94

What is credibility evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)?

Answer 94

Credibility evidence refers to evidence relevant to a witness’s truthfulness or reliability — including their character for honesty, bias, memory, or inconsistencies in statements.

Question 95

What is the credibility rule under s102 EA?

Answer 95

s102 states that evidence relevant only to credibility of a witness is inadmissible, unless an exception applies. This prevents unfair character attacks or distractions from substantive facts.

Question 96

What is the purpose of the credibility rule?

Answer 96

To preserve fairness by preventing parties from leading irrelevant or prejudicial material about a witness’s character unless justified by specific circumstances.

Question 97

What are the key exceptions to the credibility rule under the EA?

Answer 97

1. s103 – Cross-examining credibility 2. s104 – Cross-examining an accused 3. s106 – Rebutting denials 4. s108 – Re-establishing credibility 5. s101A – Dual-purpose evidence (channelling provision)

Question 98

What is the dual-purpose evidence rule under s101A EA?

Answer 98

If evidence is relevant both to credibility and another purpose (e.g., motive, identity), it may be admissible despite the credibility rule. This section prevents unnecessary exclusion of relevant evidence.

Question 99

What is the exception under s103 for cross-examining a witness?

Answer 99

s103 allows cross-examination on credibility if the evidence could substantially affect the assessment of the witness's credibility. It must go beyond trivial inconsistencies.

Question 100

What does s104 say about cross-examining the accused?

Answer 100

More stringent. If the accused gives evidence, they may only be cross-examined on credibility with leave of the court, and only if they put their character or someone else's in issue.

Question 101

When can a party use s106 to rebut a denial?

Answer 101

If a witness denies or does not admit a statement during cross-examination, the opposing party may (with leave) lead external evidence to contradict them — e.g., another witness or document.

Question 102

What is the purpose of s108 (rehabilitating a witness)?

Answer 102

s108 allows a party to re-establish a witness’s credibility after it has been attacked, by calling evidence of consistent prior statements — but only to repair damage, not to bolster initial credibility.

Question 103

What are some types of credibility attacks that justify rehabilitation under s108?

Answer 103

* Allegations of fabrication * Suggestion of bias * Cross-examination implying dishonesty In such cases, prior consistent statements may be used to rebut the attack.

Question 104

What case led to the insertion of s101A EA?

Answer 104

Adam v The Queen (2001) — credibility evidence was admitted broadly via s60. The High Court’s reasoning prompted the legislature to insert s101A to manage evidence that had dual purposes, preventing backdoor admissibility.

Question 105

What makes a person vulnerable to credibility attacks in court?

Answer 105

* Criminal history * Inconsistent statements * Relationships with parties * Mental illness or cognitive impairment * Being part of a marginalised group (e.g., children, trauma survivors)

Question 106

What kind of credibility evidence is inadmissible unless an exception applies?

Answer 106

* Prior convictions (unless relevant under s103) * Prior inconsistent statements (unless put to the witness properly) * General reputation for dishonesty * Evidence of bias without a direct connection

Question 107

What is the impact of failing to follow the credibility rules?

Answer 107

Improperly admitted credibility evidence may lead to: * A jury direction to disregard the evidence * A mistrial or appeal if prejudicial * Exclusion under s135 (prejudicial) or s137 (criminal cases)