The Course of Evidence Flashcards
(31 cards)
What must the Judge do when presiding over a trial?
- Decide all questions concerning the admissibility of evidence
- Explain and enforce the general principles of law applying to the point at issue
- Instruct the jury on the rules of law by which the evidence is to be weighed once it has been submitted.
What are the essential features of an adversarial justice system?
- The facts of the case, and evidence relevant to the determination of those facts, emerge by means of questions put by prosecution or defence to witnesses called by them.
- It is up to each party to decide what witnesses to call, the order in which they should be called, and what questions they should be asked.
- Each party has the right to test the testimony of witnesses called by the opposing party through cross-examination.
What are the requierments in relation to Oaths and Affirmations?
Witnesses who are 12 years of age or older must take an oath or affirmation before giving evidence (s77). Witnesses under the age of 12 must:
• be informed by the judge of the importance of telling the truth and not telling lies, and
• after being given that information, make a promise to tell the truth, before giving evidence.
When may a demonstration or reconstruction be held?
If relevant and if their probabtive value outweighs the risk of unfair prejudicial effect on the proceeding.
Who may comment on the Defendants right to silence at trial?
In a criminal proceeding, no person other than the defendant or the defendant’s counsel or the Judge may comment on the fact that the defendant did not give evidence at his or her trial.
What is limited by S32 in relation to the defendant exercising his right to silence,
Section 32 provides that no person may invite the fact-finder to draw an inference that the defendant is guilty from a failure to answer questions, respond to statements or disclose a defence before trial. In addition, the judge must direct the jury that it may not draw an inference of guilt from the failure.
What is the purpose of Evidence in Chief?
The purpose of evidence in chief is to elicit testmony that supports the case of the party calling that witness.
What is the general rule in realtion to leading questions?
Leasing questions may not be asked during evidence in chief or re-examination.
What is a leading question?
A question that indirectly or directly suggests a particular answer to a question.
Why are leading questions prohibited?
Leading questions are prohibited based on the belief that it will produce unreliable evidence for the following reasons;
- There is a natural tendency for people to agree with suggestions put to them by saying “yes”, even if those suggestions do not precisely accord with their own view of what happened.
- Counsel asking leading questions of their own witnesses can more easily elicit the answers which they wish to receive, thereby reducing the spontaneity and genuineness of the testimony.
- There is a danger that leading questions will result in the manipulation or construction of the evidence through collusion, conscious or otherwise, between counsel and the witness.
When are leading questions permitted?
(1) In any proceeding, a leading question must not be put to a witness in examination in chief or re-examination unless—
(a) the question relates to introductory or undisputed matters; or
(b) the question is put with the consent of all other parties; or
(c) the Judge, in exercise of the Judge’s discretion, allows the question.
What are some circumstances where leading questions may be allowed?
It is likely that leading questions may be allowed under s89(1)(c) in the following circumstances:
• To direct the witness’s attention to the subject of identification evidence (for example, “Was that the car you saw?”).
• In respect of questions about surrounding circumstances in order to jog a witness’s memory about some fact or event in issue, provided that the answer to the central question is not suggested in the question.
• To assist counsel in eliciting the evidence in chief of very young people, people who have difficulty speaking English, and people who are of limited intelligence. If allowed, the judge must ensure that the questions are genuinely necessary to elicit reliable evidence. It may be that allowing evidence to be given in an alternative way or providing a support person are better ways of addressing the problems of eliciting evidence from young or vulnerable witnesses.
• Where the witness has been declared hostile.
What does S90(5) of the Evdience Act allowfor in relation to refreshing memory in court.
Section 90(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 provides that “for the purposes of refreshing his or her memory while giving evidence, a witness may, with the prior leave of the judge, consult a document made or adopted at a time when his or her memory was fresh.”
What conditions must be satisfied when a witnesses is conculting a document to refresh their memory in court?
- the leave of the judge must be obtained
- the document must be shown to every other party in the proceeding
- s90(5) requires the document to have been “made or adopted” by a witness “at a time when his or her memory was fresh”. Whether a document was made while the memory was fresh depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
What may a witness do to refresh their memory out of court?
Witnesses may, before they give evidence in court, refresh their memory by reference to statements, briefs of evidence, or a deposition statement prepared on the basis of statements which they may have made some months before, or they may check their recollection of events with the officer who interviewed them, and so forth. The documents which the witness uses to refresh his or her memory may have been made by either the witness or by someone else; the requirement is simply that the document relates to matters which are within the witness’s own knowledge.
When are previous consistent statments admissible?
A previous statement of a witness that is consistent with the witness’s evidence is admissible if the statement—
(a) responds to a challenge that will be or has been made to the witness’s veracity or accuracy, based on a previous inconsistent statement of the witness or on a claim of invention on the part of the witness; or
(b) forms an integral part of the events before the court; or
(c) consists of the mere fact that a complaint has been made in a criminal case
What may be done when questioning a hostile witness?
the witness may be asked questions in the manner of a cross-examination to the extent that the judge considers necessary for the purposes of doing justice (s94). This may include:
• asking leading questions
• asking questions designed to probe the accuracy of memory and perception
• asking questions as to prior inconsistent statements, and
• other challenges to veracity, including evidence from other witnesses (provided that any evidence offered is “substantially helpful” in assessing the witness’s veracity).
What is a hostile witness?
In relation to a witness, means the witness
• exhibits, or appears to exhibit, a lack of veracity when giving evidence unfavourable to the party who called the witness on a matter about which the witness may reasonably be supposed to have knowledge; or
• gives evidence that is inconsistent with a statement made by that witness in a manner that exhibits, or appears to exhibit, an intention to be unhelpful to the party who called the witness; or
• refuses to answer questions or deliberately withholds evidence.
What is the differecne between a hostile witness and an unfavorable witnesses?
Witnesses who simply fail to come up to brief may be unfavourable to the party calling them, but they are not necessarily hostile.
This indicates that the simple fact that a witness gives evidence adverse to a party, suffers a loss of memory, or provides evidence inconsistent with another statement does not, by itself, justify finding the witness is hostile.
What are the two purposes of cross-examination?
- to elicit information supporting the case of the party conducting the cross-examination
- to challenge the accuracy of the testimony given in evidence-in-chief (for example, by casting doubt on the witness’s veracity or by eliciting contradictory testimony).
When is there a duty to cross examine?
Whenever a party is intending to call evidence that will contradict the evidence in chief of a witness called by an opposing party, there is an obligation to put that contradictory material to the witness during cross-examination, so that he or she has an opportunity to comment on or explain it
The duty to cross-examine will therefore arise under the Act when:
•the cross-examination deals with “significant matters” in the proceeding, and
• the matters are “relevant” and “in issue” in the proceeding, and
• the matters “contradict the evidence of the witness”, and
• The witness may “reasonably be expected to be in a position to give admissible evidence on those matters”.
What questions are considered unacceptable?
In any proceeding, the Judge may disallow, or direct that a witness is not obliged to
answer, any question that the Judge considers:
improper, unfair, misleading, needlessly
repetitive, or expressed in language that is too complicated for the witness to
understand.
What may a judge have regard to in realtion to determining unacceptable questions?
Judge may have regard to—
(a) the age or maturity of the witness; and
(b) any physical, intellectual, psychological, or psychiatric impairment of the witness; and
(c) the linguistic or cultural background or religious beliefs of the witness; and
(d) the nature of the proceeding; and
(e) in the case of a hypothetical question, whether the hypothesis has been or will be proved by other evidence in the proceeding.
What limits exist on re-examiniation?
After cross-examination by opposing counsel, the party who called the witness may re-examine that witness for the purposes of clarifying or qualifying any issue raised during cross-examination, but may not be questioned on any other matter, except with the permission of the judge.