Purpose because of the provisions of Pts 3.2–3.6 inclusive. Recommendation 12–1 described its intention as being to ensure that the provisions of Pt 3.7 apply to both: (i) evidence relevant only to credibility and, (ii) evidence relevant to credibility and also for some other purpose, but not admissible or capable of being used for that The stated intention of the ALRC was to make evidence relevant to both credibility and a fact in issue (but not admissibleįor the latter purpose) subject to the same rules as other credibility evidence: ALRC Report 102, at 12.14. Section 101A was intended by the ALRC to overcome that decision of the High Court. The ALRC considered that this decision removed the control which had been intendedīy the Credibility Rule: ALRC Report 102, at 12.5. In Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96, the High Court held that the Credibility Rule did not apply if the evidence was relevant to both credibility and a fact in issue, even where the evidence was not admissibleįor the purpose of proving that fact in issue. Is relevant because that evidence affects that assessment of credibility and is also relevant for some other purpose for which it is not admissible, or cannot be used, because of a provision in Ptsģ.2–3.6 (Hearsay, Opinion, Admissions, Evidence of judgments and convictions or Tendency and coincidence).īackground The Credibility Rule prior to the Evidence Amendment Act provided, in s 102, that “Evidence that is relevant only to a witness’s credibility is not admissible”. Is relevant only because that evidence affects the assessment of that credibility or (Discretionary and mandatory exclusions). Once admitted for that other purpose, the evidence becomes relevant also to the witness’s credibilityĭespite its non-compliance with Pt 3.7 - subject to the discretions to exclude or limit the use of the evidence in Pt 3.11 Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (13th edn at ) explains that the effect of the amendments made to this Part is that the requirements of Pt 3.7ĭo not apply where the evidence is relevant not only to the credibility of a witness or person but is also relevant and admissibleįor another purpose. Or in his trustworthiness as a witness of truth: Bickel v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd 2 NSWLR 474 at 494, followed by Wentworth v Rogers (No 10) (1987) 8 NSWLR 398 at 408. Was admissible where its nature was such as to tend rationally and logically to weaken confidence in the veracity of the witness At common law, evidence as to the credit of a witness (rather than as to his or her credibility) Part 3.7 has been substantially amended by the Evidence Amendment Act, largely as a result of the decision of the High Court in Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96 which interpreted the credibility rule defined in the former s 102 (“Evidence that is relevant only toĪ witness’s credibility is not admissible”) very narrowly in accordance with its terms, thus precluding evidence as to theĬredibility of a witness where it was relevant to proof of a fact in issue or for some other purpose in accordance with theĬommon law collateral evidence rule: R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284 at – Peacock v R (2008) 190 A Crim R 454 at . Div 2 - Credibility of witnesses (ss 102–108)ĭiv 3 - Credibility of persons who are not witnesses (ss 108A–108B)ĭiv 4 - Persons with specialised knowledge (s 108C).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |