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 ...
R v Thomas [4] - Court of Criminal Appeal, 2006 - a confession obtained under torture was not admissible as evidence in the trial of "Jihad Jack" Joseph Thomas. Goldie Marketing Pty Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Services Ltd [5] - Supreme Court, 2015 - involved presentation of misleading file notes in the discovery phase.
the admissions made in the 8 March 2003 interview were not made voluntarily, and were not admissible as evidence (per curiam) alternatively, "it would be contrary to public policy for this Court to condone what was a knowing non-compliance with the legal protection afforded by Australian law" (per curiam)
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).
Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not.
The statement of these general principles is easy, but it is obvious that it may often be very difficult to draw the line and to decide whether a particular piece of evidence is on the one side or the other. [1] Evidence of similar facts can only be admitted both if it is relevant, and its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.
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]