Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries (such as the United States and, to an extent, Australia) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible.
Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22, 141 CLR 54 (HCA), is an Australian evidence law case, in which the admissibility of improperly gained evidence is examined. Like the similar R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, Bunning v Cross, the ruling of the High Court of Australia has been formulated as an exclusionary rule, namely the onus is on the accused to prove the misconduct and justify exclusion, [1] and ...
Therefore, evidence is either relevant or it is not and if the evidence is not relevant then no further question arises about its admissibility. [28] However, logical relevance isn't sufficient to establish the potential admissibility of the evidence and is still possible for the evidence to be inadmissible.
Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
The American doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree has generally been rejected by the courts and legislators in Australia. Courts have tended to reject evidence where there is serious risk of unreliability, but where evidence is obtained unlawfully or improperly, the interest in deterring the police from unlawful, improper, or unfair treatment of the accused is balanced against the ...
On the standard of proof applicable under the Marriage Act 1928 (Vic), the lower court's finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude Mrs Briginshaw was adulterous, should be upheld Briginshaw v Briginshaw [ 1 ] (often known simply as Briginshaw ) is a 1938 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered how the requisite ...
In this procedure, evidence given in the voir dire, if then found admissible, is transferred into the main trial without having to be repeated. [ 9 ] In Australia, the rule about voir dire is in section 189 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth): "On a voir dire parties can call witnesses, cross-examine opponent's witnesses and make submissions- as ...
The best evidence rule is only applied in situations where a party attempts to substantiate a non-original document submitted as evidence during a trial. [7] Admissibility of documents before state court systems may vary. In Australia, the rule was effectively abolished with the 1995 enactment of the Uniform Evidence Law. [8]