Uniform evidence law [Twelfth edition.]
 9780455237701, 0455237700

Citation preview

Uniform Evidence Law

Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited 19 Harris Street Pyrmont NSW 2009 Tel: (02) 8587 7000 Fax: (02) 8587 7100 [email protected] www.thomsonreuters.com For all customer inquiries please ring 1300 304 195 (for calls within Australia only) INTERNATIONAL AGENTS & DISTRIBUTORS NORTH AMERICA Thomson Reuters Eagan United States of America

ASIA PACIFIC Thomson Reuters Sydney Australia

LATIN AMERICA Thomson Reuters São Paulo Brazil

EUROPE Thomson Reuters London United Kingdom

Uniform Evidence Law STEPHEN ODGERS SC

TWELFTH EDITION

LAWBOOK CO. 2016

Published in Sydney by Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited ABN 64 058 914 668 19 Harris Street, Pyrmont, NSW National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Odgers, Stephen, author Uniform evidence law / Stephen Odgers SC. Twelfth edition Includes index ISBN 9780455237701 (paperback) Australia. Evidence Act 1995. Evidence (Law) – Australia. Evidence (Law) – Australia – Cases 347.9406 © 2016 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions under the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Commonwealth: Copyright of Cth legislative material: All Commonwealth legislative material is reproduced by permission but does not purport to be the official or authorised version. It is subject to Commonwealth of Australia copyright. For reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), permission should be sought in writing from the current Commonwealth Government agency with the relevant policy responsibility. New South Wales: Copyright of NSW legislative material: Copyright continues to reside in the State of NSW. Victoria: All Acts and Statutory Rules © The State of Victoria, the Government Printer (2016). DISCLAIMER: This product or service contains an unofficial version of the Acts and Statutory Rules of the State of Victoria. The State of Victoria accepts no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or currency of any legislation contained in this product or provided through this service. This edition is up to date as of 4 May 2016. Editorial and Production Team: Paul Godwin, Patrick Harper, Jinhong Tang Editor: Julie Pak Product Developer: Paul Gye Publisher: Robert Wilson Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd, Riverwood, NSW This book has been printed on paper certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). PEFC is committed to sustainable forest management through third party forest certification of responsibly managed forests. For more info see www.pefc.org.

To Saras

TABLE OF CONTENTS About this Publication ........................................................................................................ ix Table of Cases ................................................................................................................... xiii Table of Statutes ............................................................................................................. xcvii Format of the Commentary .......................................................................................... cxxvii Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 EVIDENCE ACT Table of Provisions ............................................................................................................ 33 Chapter 1 – Preliminary ................................................................................................... 41 Chapter 2 – Adducing Evidence ...................................................................................... 76 Chapter 3 – Admissibility of Evidence .......................................................................... 298 Chapter 4 – Proof ......................................................................................................... 1244 Chapter 5 – Miscellaneous ........................................................................................... 1474 Chapter 6 – Transitional matters for Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT only) ............................................................................................... 1527 Chapter 7 – Transitional matters for Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Act 2013 (NT only) ........................................................................... 1532 Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 1533 Dictionary ....................................................................................................................... 1547 APPENDICES Appendix A – Evidence Regulations 1995 (Cth) ........................................................ 1609 Appendix B – Evidence Regulations 2015 (NSW) ..................................................... 1618 Appendix C – Evidence Regulations 2009 (Vic) ........................................................ 1626 Appendix D – Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic) ......................... 1635 Appendix E – Rights of a Person Recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ................................................................................ 1722 Appendix F – Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (Extracts) ................................. 1729 Appendix G – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) (Extracts) .................................... 1800 Appendix H – Table of Notices (Commonwealth) ...................................................... 1841 Appendix I – Table of Notices (NSW) ........................................................................ 1845 Appendix J – Table of Notices (Victoria) .................................................................... 1849 Appendix K – Table of Notices (ACT) ....................................................................... 1853 Appendix L – Table of Notices (NT) ........................................................................... 1857 Appendix M – Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) – Related Information ................................ 1861 Index ............................................................................................................................... 1871

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

vii

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION SCOPE OF THIS WORK Uniform Evidence Law 12th Edition is the leading Australian guide to uniform evidence legislation, widely used by practitioners and students alike. Over a quarter of the evidence legislation’s provisions are subjected to significant judicial interpretation each year, making it essential to have a current copy of the annotated Act at hand to stay abreast of developments. LEGISLATION Uniform Evidence Law 12th Edition contains the following legislation: • Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) • Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) • Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) • Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) • Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT) • Evidence Regulations 1995 (Cth) • Evidence Regulation 2015 (NSW) • Evidence Regulations 2009 (Vic) • Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic) • Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) [Extracts] • Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) [Extracts] CURRENCY The Acts and regulations have been updated to include all available amendments to 4 May 2016. LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS IN THIS EDITION Uniform Evidence Law 12th Edition takes account of the amendments listed below. Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Amending Acts • Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Australian Border Force) Act 2015 – Act 41 of 2015 • Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2015 – Act 113 of 2015 © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

ix

About this Publication

• Civil Law and Justice (Omnibus Amendments) Act 2015 – Act 132 of 2015 • Statute Law Revision Act (No 1) 2016 – Act 4 of 2016 • • Trade Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2016 – Act 31 of 2016 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Amending Acts • Bail (Consequential Amendments) Act 2014 – Act 5 of 2014 • Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Legislation Amendment Act 2015 – Act 7 of 2015 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) Amending Acts • Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 – Act 67 of 2013 • Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 – Act 17 of 2014 • Treasury Legislation and Other Acts Amendment Act 2014 – Act 44 of 2014 • Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 – Act 63 of 2014 • Jury Directions Act 2015 – Act 14 of 2015 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) Amending Act • Crimes (Domestic and Family Violence) Legislation Amendment Act 2015 – Act 40 of 2015 Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT) Amending Act • Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016 – Act 8 of 2016 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic) Amending Acts • Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 – Act 67 of 2013 • Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 – Act 17 of 2014 • Victoria Police Amendment (Consequential and Other Matters) Act 2014 – Act 37 of 2014 • Criminal Organisations Control and Other Acts Amendment Act 2014 – Act 55 of 2014 • Inquiries Act 2014 – Act 67 of 2014

x

Uniform Evidence Law

About this Publication

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – [Extracts] Amending Act • Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Act 2014 – Act 83 of 2014 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) – [Extracts] Amending Acts • Victoria Police Amendment (Consequential and Other Matters) Act 2014 – Act 37 of 2014 • •Criminal Organisations Control and Other Acts Amendment Act 2014 – Act 55 of 2014 • Jury Directions Act 2015 – Act 14 of 2015 • Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Other Matters) Act 2015 – Act 42 of 2015 HISTORY NOTES The history notes have been entered into an abbreviated form using the number and year of the amending Act or regulation and a descriptor (eg “insrt”) to show the effect of the amending Act or regulation. The abbreviations used in the historical notes are as follows: • insrt – inserted • am – amended • subst – substituted • rep – repealed • • • •

exp – expired reinsrt – reinserted renum – renumbered reloc – relocated

Example: History note under s 12B of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic): [S 126B insrt Act 4 of 2012, s 4] This note indicates that s 126B was inserted by Act 4 of 2012, s 4. Details of the short title of the amending Act or regulation, assent/gazettal/ registration and commencement dates are located in the Table of Amending Legislation following the Table of Provisions.

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xi

About this Publication

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic) • Justice Legislation (Evidence and Other Acts) Amendment Bill 2016 – 2nd reading speech Legislative Assembly 13 Apr 2016. Ss 3-8 commence on a date to be proclaimed or 10 Apr 2017. Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) • Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 – passed Legislative Assembly 24 Mar 2016; 2nd reading speech Legislative Council 24 Mar 2016. Ss 9 and 10 commence day after date of assent; s 12 commences on a date to be proclaimed or 6 Feb 2017. ENQUIRIES Considerable care has been taken in this compilation, but the interpretation and consolidation of the legislation is complex. The Publisher invites feedback on this edition. Correspondence may be addressed to: LTA Service Reply Paid 3502 PO Box 3502 Rozelle NSW 2039 Email: [email protected]

xii

Uniform Evidence Law

TABLE OF CASES [References are to paragraph numbers]

A A (a Child), Re (2000) 115 A Crim R 1 ............................................................. [EA.81.60] A3 v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 894 ...................................... [EA.130.60] AC v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 21 ..................................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180] ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2010) 275 ALR 235; [2010] FCA 1131 ...................................................................................................... [EA.76.120] ACN 062 895 774 Pty Ltd v Tyndall [2007] NSWCA 64 ................................ [EA.56.120] AE v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 52 .............. [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240] AJE v Western Australia [2012] WASCA 185 ................................................ [EA.141.120] AJW v New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 803 ......................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] AK v Western Australia (2008) 82 ALJR 534; [2008] HCA 8 .......................... [EA.76.90] AMP General Insurance Ltd v Prasad [1999] NSWSC 349 ........................ [EA.128.330], [EA.128.780] AMP Services Ltd v Manning [2006] FCA 256 ................................................ [EA.55.180] ARS v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 266 ........................................................ [EA.138.570] ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 417 ...................................................................... [EA.57.120] ATH Transport v JAS (International) [2002] NSWSC 956 ............................. [EA.125.90] AW v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 1 ...................................... [EA.97.480], [EA.101.450] AWA Ltd v Daniels (1992) 7 ACSR 463 ......................................................... [EA.131.120] AWB Ltd v Cole [2006] FCA 571 ................................................................... [EA.118.150] AWB Ltd v Cole (No 5) [2006] FCA 1234 ..................................................... [EA.118.390] Abbosh v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 265 .......................... [EA.137.120], [EA.137.210] Abdallah v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 34 .................................................... [EA.79.330] Abdel-Hady v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 196 ........................................... [EA.165.480] Abdul-Kader v The Queen (2007) 178 A Crim R 281; [2007] NSWCCA 329 ............................................................................................................... [EA.108.150] Abigroup Ltd v Akins (1997) 42 NSWLR 623 .............................................. [EA.Intro.120] Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority v Maurice (1986) 10 FCR 104 ....................................................................................... [EA.130.180], [EA.130.300] Actone Holdings Pty Ltd v Gridtek Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 991 ................. [EA.122.330] Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96; 123 A Crim R 280; 75 ALJR 1537; [2001] HCA 57 ................... [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.240], [EA.60.60], [EA.66.180], [EA.81.270], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.120], [EA.101A.180], [EA.Intro.180], [EA.192A.60] Adamson v Ede [2009] NSWCA 379 ................................................................ [EA.56.120] Addenbrooke Pty Ltd v Duncan (No 5) [2014] FCA 625 ................................ [EA.69.240] Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd v Spalvins (1998) 81 FCR 360; 152 ALR 418 .... [EA.118.90], [EA.122.270] Adlam v Noack [1999] FCA 1606 .................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60], [EA.131.390] Adler v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2003] NSWCA 131 ......................... [EA.55.180], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150], [EA.79.240], [EA.80.90], [EA.128.690] Age Co Ltd, The v Liu [2013] NSWCA 26 .................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.87.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xiii

Table of Cases

Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1697 ................... [EA.192A.60] Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd [2015] NSWSC 19 ......................... [EA.97.240] Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87 ............. [EA.57.210], [EA.59.180], [EA.87.120], [EA.87.180] Ahmad v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 177 ................................................... [EA.131.360] Ahmed v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 260 ................................................... [EA.165.480] Ahmed v The Queen [2012] VSCA 200 ............................................................ [EA.55.180] Ainsworth v Burden [2005] NSWCA 174 .................................. [EA.91.60], [EA.135.150] Airtourer Co-operative Ltd v Millicer Aircraft Industries Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 948 .............................................................................. [EA.131.120], [EA.131.270] Aitken v Murphy [2011] FamCA 785 .............................................................. [EA.128.120] Akins v Abigroup Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 539 ......................... [EA.118.90], [EA.122.330] Al-Hashimi v The Queen (2004) 181 FLR 383; 145 A Crim R 186; [2004] WASCA 61 ............................................................................ [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1980] 2 NSWLR 542 ................. [EA.69.270] Alchin v Commissioner for Railways (1935) 35 SR (NSW) 498 ................... [EA.39.210], [EA.39.240], [EA.43.180], [EA.48.120] Alderman v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2011] NSWSC 754 .............. [EA.131A.90] Alderton v Department of Police & Emergency Management [2008] TASSC 69 ..................................................................................................... [EA.144.60] Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395; 55 ALJR 355 .......................... [EA.66.60], [EA.114.240], [EA.115.150] Alexander v The Queen [2016] VSCA 92 ......................................................... [EA.98.120] Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 833 .............................................. [EA.28.120], [EA.37.240] Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404; 50 ALR 41 ....... [EA.130.120], [EA.130.210], [EA.130.270], [EA.130.390] Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34 ............ [EA.95.60], [EA.97.60], [EA.136.270] Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 75 ..................................................................................................................... [EA.94.90] Allen v Robbie [2015] NSWCA 247 ................................................................. [EA.79.180] Allen v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 629; 235 A Crim R 40; [2013] VSCA 263 ......................................................................................... [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240] Allianz Australia Ltd v Sim [2012] NSWCA 68 .......................... [EA.79.240], [EA.80.90] Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 .................................................................. [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] Allstate Life Insurance Co v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (No 3) (1996) 64 FCR 55 ............................................................................................................ [EA.75.90] Allstate Life Insurance Co v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (No 5) (1996) 64 FCR 73 ........................................................................................ [EA.76.90], [EA.77.60] Allstate Life Insurance Co v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (No 6) (1996) 64 FCR 79; 137 ALR 138 ............................................................. [EA.79.120], [EA.80.90] Alomalu v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 255 ................................................. [EA.141.150] Alphapharm Pty Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2008] FCA 559 ................................ [EA.79.270] Amaba Pty Ltd v Booth [2010] NSWCA 344 ................................................... [EA.79.120] Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd [2015] VSC 582 ................................. [EA.32.180], [EA.63.60] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [1999] NSWCA 97 .... [EA.122.300] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419 .... [EA.26.240], [EA.48.60], [EA.79.120], [EA.189.120] Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1988) 19 FCR 223 ........................ [EA.10.60] Amcor Ltd v Barnes [2011] VSC 341 ....................................... [EA.125.90], [EA.125.180] Ames v Ames [2009] FamCA 825 ................................................................... [EA.138.120] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 12 ......................................................................................... [EA.122.210], [EA.122.270] Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 70 ALJR 603 ....................... [EA.122.270] Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Tomar (No 4) [2012] FCA 385 .... [EA.79.300], [EA.79.330] Anandan v The Queen [2011] VSCA 413 ......................................................... [EA.55.270] Andelman v The Queen (2013) 227 A Crim R 81; [2013] VSCA 25 ........ [EA.101A.120], [EA.100.60], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.480] Andi-Co Australia Pty Ltd v Meyers [2004] FCA 1358 ................................. [EA.131.270] Aneve Pty Ltd v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2005] NSWCA 441 ................................ [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.52.30] Ann Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd v KPMG [2011] FCA 453 .............................. [EA.131.510] Antoniadis v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Defamation List, Levine J, 10 March 1997) ............................................... [EA.182.40] Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2010] ACTCA 28 ................................................................................................. [EA.192A.60] Aouad v The Queen (2011) 207 A Crim R 411; [2011] NSWCCA 61 .......... [EA.55.180], [EA.59.180], [EA.114.90], [EA.115.180], [EA.165.210] Apollo Shower Screens Pty Ltd v Building & Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corp (1985) 1 NSWLR 561 ......................................... [EA.140.120] Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 5) [2011] FCA 1282 .......... [EA.131.270], [EA.131.390] Apple v Wily [2002] NSWSC 855 ............................................. [EA.117.90], [EA.119.120] Applicant S1983 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 854 ........................................................................................................ [EA.144.60] Application concerning Section 80 of the Supreme Court Act and Sections 119 and 128 of the Evidence Act [2004] NSWSC 614 .... [EA.128.180], [EA.128.780] Application of Lee [2009] ACTSC 98; 212 A Crim R 442 ........................... [EA.138.150], [EA.138.540] Aqua-Marine Marketing Pty Ltd v Pacific Reef Fisheries (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 578 ................................................... [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] Archer v Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Ltd (1997) 15 NSWCCR 297 ...................... [EA.55.180] Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 21 .................................................................. [EA.95.60], [EA.97.240] Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 430 ......................... [EA.131A.90] Arnotts Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1990) 24 FCR 313 ..................... [EA.79.240] Arrow Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Merck & Co Inc (2004) 210 ALR 593; [2004] FCA 1131 ........................................................................................ [EA.122.210] Artistic Builders Pty Ltd v Nash [2009] NSWSC 102 ................................... [EA.122.150] Asciak v Australian Secured & Managed Mortgages Pty Ltd (ACN 112 603 219) [2008] FCA 753 ......................... [EA.121.150], [EA.131.450], [EA.131.540] Asden Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dinoris (No 2) [2015] FCA 1025 ...... [EA.69.120] Ashby v Commonwealth (No 2) (2012) 203 FCR 440; [2012] FCA 766 .... [EA.126K.90], [EA.126K.180], [EA.126K.330], [EA.131A.60], [EA.131A.90] Ashby v Commonwealth (No 3) [2012] FCA 788 ............................................... [EA.75.90] Ashby v Slipper (2014) 219 FCR 322; [2014] FCAFC 15 ..... [EA.46.150], [EA.118.600], [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] Ashfield Municipal Council v RTA [2004] NSWSC 917 ................................ [EA.122.180] Ashley v The Queen [2016] NTCCA 2 ............................................................. [EA.66.150] Asim v Penrose [2010] NSWCA 366 ........................................ [EA.140.60], [EA.165.480] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xv

Table of Cases

Aslett v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 49 ........... [EA.43.180], [EA.103.90], [EA.165.210] Aslett v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 188 ....................................................... [EA.116.90] Astram Financial Services Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2010] FCA 1010 ................................................................................................................. [EA.97.60] Atai v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 210 .......................................................... [EA.165.90] Athens v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWCA 317 ............................ [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] Atkinson, In the Marriage of (1997) 136 FLR 347 ................ [EA.128.510], [EA.128.540] Atlas Financial International Ltd v Nortbale Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 815 ........................ [EA.131.480] Atra v Farmers & Graziers Co-op Co Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 281 ................ [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120], [EA.69.240] Attorney-General (Cth) v Foster (1999) 84 FCR 582; 161 ALR 232 ............. [EA.143.60] Attorney-General (Cth) v Kevin (2003) 172 FLR 300; [2003] FamCA 94 ..... [EA.185.20] Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500 ........ [EA.119.120], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120] Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475; 61 ALJR 92 ........ [EA.122.390], [EA.126.60] Attorney-General’ (Tas) v Wright [2013] TASCCA 14 .................................... [EA.138.90] Attorney-General (WA) v Cockram (1990) 2 WAR 477 ................................. [EA.128.540] Attorney General v Yau Hang Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315 ............................... [EA.91.60] Attorney General (NSW) v Borland [2007] NSWCA 201 .............................. [EA.128.540] Attorney General (NSW) v Kaddour and Turkmani [2001] NSWCCA 456 ........................ [EA.130.150] Attorney General (NSW) v Lipton [2012] NSWCCA 156 ...... [EA.130.60], [EA.130.150], [EA.130.270], [EA.130.390] Attorney General (NSW) v Markisic [2014] NSWSC 1596 ....... [EA.144.60], [EA.157.60] Attorney General (NSW) v Martin [2015] NSWSC 1372 .................................. [EA.91.60] Attorney General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667; 75 A Crim R 8 ....................... [EA.130.150] Attorney General (NSW) v Winters (2007) 176 A Crim R 249; [2007] NSWSC 1071 ................................................................................................ [EA.26.300] Attwood v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 353 ..................................................... [EA.110.60] Audsley v The Queen [2014] VSCA 321 ............................. [EA.108C.150], [EA.192.100] Aurousseau v Commonwealth [1998] FCA 1724 .............................................. [EA.79.120] Austereo Pty Ltd v DMG Radio (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 968 ................... [EA.66A.90] Austic v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 110 ............................................. [EA.141.120] Australian Automotive Repairers Assn (Political Action Committee) Inc (in liq) v Insurance (Aust) Ltd [2006] ATPR 42–111; [2006] FCAFC 33 ...... [EA.106.90], [EA.106.150], [EA.106.270] Australian Automotive Repairers’ Association (Political Action Committee) Inc v NRMA Insurance Ltd (No 4) [2004] FCA 369 ............ [EA.106.270] Australian Broadcasting Corp v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430; [2001] NSWCA 322 ................................................................................................... [EA.55.90] Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v Abbott (No 2) [2011] FCA 308 ........................................................................................................ [EA.45.120] Australian Cement Holdings Pty Ltd v Adelaide Brighton Ltd [2001] NSWSC 645 ........................................................................... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150] Australian Communications & Media Authority v Clarity1 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1449 ...................................................................................................... [EA.160.90] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v 4WD Systems Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 850 .............................................................................................. [EA.97.60] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 1357 .................................................. [EA.69.240] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355 ............ [EA.57.120], [EA.58.60], [EA.69.120], [EA.69.150], [EA.69.210] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 5) [2012] FCA 1479 .............................................................................. [EA.69.120] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 13) [2013] FCA 577 ........................................................................... [EA.108A.60] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1075 ............................................ [EA.192A.60], [EA.131.270] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] FCA 338 ......................................................................... [EA.57.120] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Alvaton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 760 ..................................................................................... [EA.191.20] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Medical Assn Western Australia Branch Inc [2001] ATPR 41–844 ......................... [EA.191.20] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 526; 153 ALR 393 .......... [EA.117.120], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.390], [EA.119.120], [EA.122.270] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1269 ............................................................... [EA.135.150] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 1294 ................................................... [EA.131.510] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Bridgestone Corp [2010] FCA 584 ............................................................................................ [EA.191.20] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd [1998] ATPR 41-650 .......................................... [EA.64.120], [EA.64.150], [EA.67.60] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) (1999) 92 FCR 375; 165 ALR 468 ........................... [EA.97.450], [EA.135.90] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CFMEU [2008] FCA 678 ................................................................................................................. [EA.45.150] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 32 ................................................. [EA.117.120], [EA.122.330] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 562 ..................................................................................... [EA.69.120] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Cement Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] FCA 1131 ................................................. [EA.69.210], [EA.136.60] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v EDirect Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2012] FCA 976 .................................................................................... [EA.191.20] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Emerald Ocean Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 740 ..................................................................................... [EA.79.330] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v George Weston Foods Ltd (2003) 198 ALR 592 ............................................................................ [EA.122.330] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1412 ...................................................... [EA.79.180] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Jutsen (No 3) [2011] FCA 1352 ...................................................................................................... [EA.144.60] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum [2004] FCA 1678 .......................................................................................... [EA.87.120] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 794 ..................................................................................... [EA.87.180] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Lux Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 89 ............................................................................................................ [EA.80.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xvii

Table of Cases

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Lux Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 949 ........................................................................................................ [EA.136.90] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Mayo International Pty Ltd (1998) 85 FCR 327 ........................................................................... [EA.87.90] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 382 ......................................................................... [EA.191.20] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v P & N Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 6 ............................................................................................................ [EA.191.20] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Pratt (No 3) [2009] FCA 407 ............................................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.88.60], [EA.191.40] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 4) [2012] FCA 1323 ............................................. [EA.75.60] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Skins Compression Garments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 710 .............................................................. [EA.191.20] Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v World Netsafe [2002] FCA 517 .......................................................................................................... [EA.87.90] Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart [2011] HCA 47 ................................ [EA.18.60] Australian Federal Police, Commissioner of v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501; 141 ALR 545 ................................. [EA.118.210], [EA.125.180] Australian Gift and Homewares Association Ltd v Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust (Ruling No 1) [2014] VSC 481 ................................. [EA.75.120] Australian Medic-Care Co Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd (No 4) [2008] FCA 1038 .......................................................................................... [EA.69.240] Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd v Parnell Transport Industries Pty Ltd (1998) 88 FCR 537; 159 ALR 477 .................... [EA.26.60], [EA.56.60], [EA.69.390], [EA.169.60] Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (1999) 165 ALR 253 ................................................................................................................... [EA.80.90] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] FCA 342 ..................................................................................... [EA.57.120] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 113 114832) (No 2) (2007) 157 FCR 310; [2007] FCA 121 .................................. [EA.26.240], [EA.126K.210], [EA.192.60] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Geary (Ruling No 3) [2015] VSC 656 ............................................................................................ [EA.64.330] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 .................................................................... [EA.55.180], [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 5) [2008] NSWSC 1169 .................................................................................. [EA.138.120] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd (2008) 169 FCR 227 ..................... [EA.130.150], [EA.130.330], [EA.130.420] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 183 ........................................................................ [EA.130.150] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 342 ........................................................... [EA.122.150] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich [2004] NSWSC 923 ............................................................................................................... [EA.122.180] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich [2004] NSWSC 934 ............................................................................................................... [EA.122.210] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich [2004] NSWSC 1017 ............................................................................................................. [EA.118.330] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2004) 51 ACSR 363; [2004] NSWSC 1062 ......................... [EA.55.120], [EA.189.120], [EA.Intro.340] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 190 FLR 242; [2005] NSWSC 149 ............................................................................. [EA.79.330] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich [2005] NSWCA 152 .................................................................. [EA.79.240], [EA.79.300], [EA.135.210] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 191 FLR 385; 216 ALR 320; [2005] NSWSC 417 ......... [EA.48.210], [EA.57.120], [EA.58.60], [EA.60.60], [EA.69.120], [EA.69.180], [EA.69.600], [EA.76.120] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich [2005] NSWSC 1015 ............................................................................................................... [EA.39.120] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich [2006] 201 FLR 207; [2006] NSWSC 643 .... [EA.126K.210], [EA.26.240], [EA.43.240], [EA.44.120], [EA.192.60] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2009 )236 FLR 1; [2009] NSWSC 1229 ............................................................................. [EA.140.120] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Sigalla (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 792 ............................................... [EA.138.510], [EA.138.630], [EA.138.660] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Vines (2003) 48 ACSR 291; [2003] NSWSC 1095 ......... [EA.76.90], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150], [EA.79.300], [EA.80.90] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Vines [2003] NSWSC 1237 ............................................................................................................... [EA.97.120] Australian Securities Commission v AS Nominees Ltd (1995) 62 FCR 504 ....................... [EA.Intro.120] Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485 ............................................................................................. [EA.Intro.300] Ayad v Australian Postal Commission (unreported, NSW CA, 4 October 1990) ............................................................................................................ [EA.136.240] Aylett v Attorney-General (Tas) [2003] TASSC 19 ............................................ [EA.75.90] Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15 ............ [EA.135.210], [EA.137.90], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150], [EA.144.90] Azizi v The Queen (2012) 224 A Crim R 325; [2012] VSCA 205 ................. [EA.59.180], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180] Azzi v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 249 ........................... [EA.101A.120], [EA.108A.60], [EA.108B.60] Azzi v Volvo Car Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2007] NSWSC 375 ........................ [EA.8.90] Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 ............................................................. [EA.20.180], [EA.20.210], [EA.55.180]

B B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599 ................. [EA.56.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180] B & M Activities Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [1998] NSWSC 324 .................................................................................................. [EA.97.450] BA v The Queen [2012] VSCA 285 .............................................................. [EA.Intro.120] BBH v The Queen [2012] HCA 9 .......................... [EA.55.60], [EA.55.210], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.210] BC v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 327 ......................................................... [EA.101.180] BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2007] FCAFC 157 ..................................................................................................... [EA.79.60] BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2000] FCA 1613 ...................................... [EA.87.90] BI (Contracting) Pty Ltd v University of Adelaide [2008] NSWCA 210 ........ [EA.79.150] BJS v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 239 ........................................................ [EA.101.240] BJS v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 123 .......................................................... [EA.41.300] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xix

Table of Cases

BP v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 303 ................................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.240] BPA Industries Ltd v Black (1987) 11 NSWLR 609 ...................................... [EA.128.360] BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; 95 A Crim R 400; [1997] HCA 47 ................... [EA.Intro.340], [EA.56.60], [EA.101.90], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.300], [EA.101.360], [EA.110.90], [EA.165.480] BSJ v The Queen [2012] VSCA 93 ................................................................. [EA.101.240] BT Australasia Pty Ltd v NSW (No 7) (1998) 153 ALR 722 ........................ [EA.122.270] BT Australasia Pty Ltd v NSW (No 8) (1998) 154 ALR 202 ....................... [EA.122.210], [EA.122.270] BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd v Patterson (1990) 20 NSWLR 724 ............... [EA.128.120], [EA.128.360] BZAAG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 217 ............ [EA.23.120] Bailey v Department of Land & Water Conservation (2009) 74 NSWLR 333; [2009] NSWCA 100 ............................ [EA.117.90], [EA.118.540], [EA.118.570], [EA.122.120], [EA.122.180], [EA.133.60] Bailey v Director-General, Department of Natural Resources NSW [2015] NSWCA 318 ................................................................................................. [EA.55.180] Bailey v Director-General Department of Natural Resources [2013] NSWSC 515 ............................................................................................... [EA.192A.60] Bailiff v The Queen [2011] ACTCA 7 ................................................................. [EA.52.30] Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 ............ [EA.117.120], [EA.118.60], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.420] Bakerland Pty Ltd v Coleridge [2002] NSWCA 30 ....................................... [EA.135.150] Bakopoulos v General Motors Holden Pty Ltd [1973] VR 190 .................... [EA.106.150] Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226 ....................... [EA.46.150], [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] Ballard v Brookfield Multiplex Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1461 ................. [EA.106.120] Bangaru v The Queen (2012) 269 FLR 367; [2012] NSWCCA 204 .............. [EA.97.480] Banjima People v Western Australia (2011) 200 FCR 138; [2011] FCA 1454 ............................................................................................................. [EA.189.120] Bank of Valletta PLC v National Crime Authority (1999) 90 FCR 565 ............ [EA.76.90] Banksia Mortgages Ltd v Croker [2010] NSWSC 535 .......... [EA.118.330], [EA.122.180] Banksia Mortgages Ltd v Croker [2010] NSWSC 883 .............. [EA.168.60], [EA.169.90] Bannon v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 1; 83 A Crim R 370; [1995] HCA 27 ..................................................................................................................... [EA.62.60] Barak Pty Ltd v WTH Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 649 .................. [EA.26.300], [EA.79.330] Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82 .................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.141.120] Barclays Bank v Eustice [1994] 4 All ER 511 ................................................. [EA.125.90] Bare v Small [2011] VSC 639 ......................................................................... [EA.125.120] Barescape Pty Ltd v Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd (No 5) [2011] NSWSC 1307 ............................................................................................................... [EA.57.120] Barker v Gifford [2005] ACTSC 55 .................................................................. [EA.144.60] Barlow v Law Society (ACT) [2012] ACTSC 16 .............................................. [EA.144.60] Barnes v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCAFC 88 ................... [EA.118.540] Barnes v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 136 ................................................... [EA.165.480] Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd v Dennis Family Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 276 .................................................................. [EA.131.270], [EA.131.480] Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1509 ............................................................................................................. [EA.135.150] Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 ........................................................... [EA.11.90] Bataillard v The King (1907) 4 CLR 1282 ....................................................... [EA.20.150] Bates v Nelson (1973) 6 SASR 149 ........................................... [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] Bates t/as Riot Wetsuits v Omareef Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1472 ...................... [EA.128.780] Batey v Potts [2004] NSWSC 606 ...................................................................... [EA.92.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xx

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Bauer v The Queen [2015] VSCA 55 ......................................... [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120] Bauhaus Pyrmont Pty Ltd (in liq), In the matter of [2006] NSWSC 543 ..... [EA.122.360] Baulch v Lyndoch Warrnambool Inc [2010] VSCA 30 .................................... [EA.46.150] Bax Global (Australia) Pty Ltd v Evans (1999) 47 NSWLR 538; [1999] NSWSC 815 ....................... [EA.128.330], [EA.128.540], [EA.128.600], [EA.128.780] Bayeh v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 100 FCR 138 ................... [EA.160.60] Beattie v Ball [1999] VSCA 227 ......................................................................... [EA.46.60] Beattie v Osman (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 824 ..................................................... [EA.50.30] Beckett v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 305 .............................. [EA.81.60], [EA.138.120] Bective Station Pty Ltd v AWB (Aust) Ltd [2006] FCA 1596 ......................... [EA.97.120], [EA.97.300], [EA.98.300] Bedford v Bedford (unreported, NSW SC, Windeyer J, 20 October 1998) ..... [EA.138.60] Bedi v The Queen (1994) 61 SASR 269 ................................ [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Bell v The Queen (1985) 7 FCR 555 .............................................................. [EA.103.120] Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corp (1998) 86 FCR 215 ......... [EA.122.330] Bellchambers v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 235 ........................................ [EA.165.480] Bellemore v Tasmania (2006) 170 A Crim R 1; 207 FLR 20; [2006] TASSC 111 ............................................................................................... [EA.101A.120] Bellpac Pty Ltd (in liq), Re [2013] FCAFC 48 ................................................ [EA.55.180] Benbrika v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281 ................................ [EA.141.90], [EA.165.480] Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Ltd v Abdelkodous [2011] NSWSC 32 ............... [EA.122.210] Bennett v Chief Executive Offıcer, Australian Customs Service (2004) 140 FCR 101; [2004] FCAFC 237 .................................................................... [EA.122.150] Bennett v Chief Executive Offıcer of the Australian Customs Service [2004] FCAFC 237 ....................................................................................... [EA.122.60] Benson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 51 ........................................................... [EA.101.150] BestCare Foods Ltd v Origin Energy LPG Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1304 ............ [EA.69.240] Bibby Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Sharma [2014] NSWCA 37 .... [EA.140.60] Bin Sulaeman v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 283 .......................................... [EA.90.360] Bingul v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 239 ............................. [EA.97.480], [EA.101.450] Biovision 2020 Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Ltd [2010] VSC 589 ................. [EA.131A.90], [EA.131.270] Birks v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 29 .................................................... [EA.53.60] Birrell v Australian National Airlines Commission (1984) 1 FCR 526 ....... [EA.126D.30], [EA.125.90], [EA.128.210], [NSW.CP.760] Biseja Pty Ltd v NSI Group Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1497 ........................... [EA.122.210] Bishop v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 642; [2013] VSCA 273 ..... [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90] Blackrock Asset Management Australia Services Ltd v Waked (No 2) [2011] FCA 479 .......................................................................................... [EA.118.540] Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969 ...................... [EA.55.180], [EA.140.120] Blewitt v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 503 ......................................................... [EA.38.60] Bloom v Mini Minors Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, McLelland J, 26 August 1996) ............................................................................................... [EA.131.420] Bloss Holdings Pty Ltd v Brackley Industries Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 756 ...................... [EA.131.480] Bochkov v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 166 ................................................... [EA.59.180] Bodnar v Townsend [2003] TASSC 148 ......................................................... [EA.138.120] Bodney v Bennell [2008] FCAFC 63 ...................... [EA.76.90], [EA.79.240], [EA.79.270] Boensch v Pascoe [2007] FCA 532 ................................................................ [EA.122.210] Bolus v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 182 ..................................................... [EA.165.480] Bond v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1988) 19 FCR 494; 84 ALR 646 ................................................................................................................. [EA.26.120] Boney v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 165 ............................ [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxi

Table of Cases

Boonudnoon v The Queen (2002) 135 A Crim R 271 ...................................... [EA.141.90] Booth v Bosworth (2001) 114 FCR 39; 117 LGERA 168; [2001] FCA 1453 ..................................................................................... [EA.140.60], [EA.Intro.120] Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2015] VSC 459 ....................................................... [EA.66A.60] Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard [2009] NSWCA 167 ............. [EA.80.90], [EA.87.90] Boston Clothing Co Pty Ltd v Margaronis (1992) NSWLR 580 ..................... [EA.46.150] Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (No 2 ) [2014] NSWLEC 101 .................................................................................. [EA.50.30] Boyer v The Queen [2015] VSCA 242 .............. [EA.66.180], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.330], [EA.165.450] Bradford v Bradford (1996) 19 Fam LR 488 ................................................... [EA.133.60] Brandi v Mingot (1976) 12 ALR 551 ............................................................... [EA.55.180] Braslin v Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 14 ............. [EA.46.120], [EA.116.90], [EA.116.150] Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2002) 118 FCR 1; 190 ALR 1 ..................... [EA.75.60] Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2003) 130 FCR 317; [2003] FCAFC 153 ................................................................................................................... [EA.75.60] Bray v The Queen [2014] VSCA 276 ............................................................. [EA.137.120] Breavington v Godleman (1988) 169 CLR 41 .................................................. [EA.185.20] Brebner v Perry [1961] SASR 177 ......................................... [EA.128.120], [EA.128.360] Brett v Beales (1830) 10 B & C 508; 109 ER 539 ............................................ [EA.74.60] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 ................................................. [EA.140.60] Briscoe v Briscoe [1968] P 501 ......................................................................... [EA.26.120] British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Eubanks (2004) 60 NSWLR 483; [2004] NSWCA 158 ........... [EA.118.240], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.420] British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2 .... [EA.125.180] Broke Hills Estate Pty Ltd v Oakvale Wines Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 638 ..... [EA.75.180] Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315 ................................................... [EA.165.480] Brooks v The Queen [2012] VSCA 197 ....................................... [EA.55.330], [EA.81.60] Brown v Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 187 ALR 714; [2001] FCA 596 ....................................................................................... [EA.131.150], [EA.131.480] Brown v Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 119 FCR 269; [2002] FCA 318 ...................... [EA.131.270], [EA.189.120] Brown v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWCA 431 ......... [EA.140.60] Brown v The King (1913) 17 CLR 570 ............................................................ [EA.141.90] Brown v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 69 ...................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.135.150], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.270] Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 ...... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.60] Browne v The Queen (1987) 30 A Crim R 278 .............................................. [EA.114.240] Bruinsma v Menczer (1995) 40 NSWLR 716 ................................................ [EA.131.510] Bryant v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 26 ........ [EA.97.120], [EA.100.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.139.60] Buchwald v The Queen [2011] VSCA 445 ................................... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.120] Bugg v Day (1949) 79 CLR 442 ....................................................................... [EA.79.240] Building Insurers’ Guarantee Corp v A & MI Hanson Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 381 ................................................................................................ [EA.118.360] Bulejcik v The Queen (1996) 185 CLR 375 .... [EA.114.330], [EA.116.90], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Bulk Materials (Coal Handling) Services Pty Ltd v Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 689 .............................................. [EA.122.360] Bull v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 443 ............................................................ [EA.59.180] Bulstrode v Trimble [1970] VR 840 ............................................. [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 .............. [EA.138.60], [EA.138.210], [EA.138.420], [EA.138.570], [EA.138.690] Burg Design Pty Ltd v Wolki (1999) 162 ALR 639 ....................................... [EA.131.390] Burke v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 40 VR 161; 237 A Crim R 130; [2013] VSCA 351 ............................ [EA.20.180], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.540] Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258 ....................................................... [EA.165.480] Burnside Sub-Branch RSSILA Inc v Burnside Memorial Bowling Club Inc (1990) 58 SASR 324 .............................................................. [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] Burr v Ware Rural District Council [1939] 2 All ER 688 ................................. [EA.87.90] Burrell v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 65 ....... [EA.38.270], [EA.135.270], [EA.137.60], [EA.141.120] Burrell v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 163 ............................. [EA.38.270], [EA.141.120] Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty (2004) 218 CLR 592; 212 ALR 357; [2004] HCA 60 .......................................................................................... [EA.Intro.120] Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty (2002) 55 NSWLR 558; [2002] NSWCA 237 ............................................................................................... [EA.9.90], [EA.81.180] Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180; 30 A Crim R 417 .................................. [EA.29.180], [EA.31.60], [EA.48.180], [EA.79.150] Butler v The Queen (2011) 216 A Crim R 215; [2011] VSCA 417 ............... [EA.20.180], [EA.55.330] Buzzle Operations v Apple Computer Australia [2009] NSWSC 225 .......... [EA.117.120], [EA.119.120]

C C & C, Re (1995) 20 Fam LR 24 ....................................................................... [EA.27.60] CEG v The Queen [2012] VSCA 55 ................................................................. [EA.97.120] CGL v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (2010) 24 VR 486; [2010] VSCA 26 .......................................................... [EA.55.420], [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120] CJ Redman Constructions Pty Ltd v Tarnap Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 173 .... [EA.131.270] CMG v The Queen [2011] VSCA 416 ......................................................... [EA.165A.210] CMG v The Queen (2013) 234 A Crim R 455; [2013] VSCA 243 ................. [EA.46.150] CV v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] VSCA 58 .......... [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120], [EA.98.150] CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288 .................... [EA.98.60], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.180] Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 108 FCR 311 ................... [EA.4.150], [EA.4.180] Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 363 ............................................................................................ [EA.80.150] Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (2007) 159 FCR 397; [2007] FCAFC 70 ....... [EA.79.240], [EA.79.300], [EA.80.150], [EA.135.210] Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 323 ....................................................................................... [EA.126.60] Cadwallader v Bajco Pty Ltd (2001) 189 ALR 370 ........................................ [EA.79.180] Cadwallader v Bajco Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 328 ......................................... [EA.55.180] Cain v Glass (No 2) (1985) 3 NSWLR 230 ................................................... [EA.130.150] Calderwood v The Queen (2007) 172 A Crim R 208 [2007] NSWCCA 180 ................................................................................................................. [EA.137.60] Calleija v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 37 .................................................... [EA.128.600] Cambridge v Anastasopoulos [2012] NSWCA 405 .......................................... [EA.79.240] Camm v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1133 .......................... [EA.138.120] Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1306 .......................................................................................... [EA.64.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxiii

Table of Cases

Campbell v Hitchcock [2003] NSWIRComm 148 ...................... [EA.57.120], [EA.58.60], [EA.59.150], [EA.147.60] Campbell v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 175 .......................... [EA.79.120], [EA.80.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 304 ............. [EA.79.330] Can v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 176 ........................................................ [EA.137.210] Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Brendas (2010) 188 FCR 140; 273 ALR 601; [2010] FCAFC 125 ............................... [EA.26.150], [EA.41.150] Cannar v Eubanks [2003] NSWSC 802 ........ [EA.118.240], [EA.122.180], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.420] Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Andreasen [2005] NSWSC 579 ........ [EA.55.510], [EA.97.60], [EA.100.60] Carbotech-Australia Pty Ltd v Yates [2008] NSWSC 1151 ............................. [EA.125.90] Carlton v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 81 .................................................... [EA.138.690] Carnell v Mann (1998) 89 FCR 247 ............. [EA.117.120], [EA.118.210], [EA.118.360], [EA.122.300] Carney v Newton [2006] TASSC 4 ................................................................... [EA.140.60] Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314 ........................................................ [EA.165.420] Carr v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 439 ......................................................... [EA.116.90] Carroll v The Queen [2004] WASCA 254 ................................................... [EA.165B.240] Carter v Managing Partner, Northmore Hale Davy & Leake (1995) 183 CLR 121 .................................................................................. [EA.118.60], [EA.123.60] Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd v Auspine Ltd [2008] VSCA 59 ......................................................................................... [EA.118.390] Case Stated by Director of Public Prosecutions (No 1 of 1993) (1993) 66 A Crim R 259 ............................................................................................. [EA.165.450] Casey v R [2016] NSWCCA 77 .......................................................................... [EA.38.60] Casley-Smith v Evans & Sons Pty Ltd (No 1) (1988) 49 SASR 314 ............. [EA.79.120], [EA.80.150] Caterpillar Inc v John Deere Ltd (No 2) (2000) 181 ALR 108 ............. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.60], [EA.63.60], [EA.64.120], [EA.64.150] Cawthray v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 105 ............................................... [EA.165.480] Ceedive Pty Ltd v May [2004] NSWSC 33 .................................... [EA.73.60], [EA.73.90] Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd v Martin [2002] FCA 722 ............................ [EA.97.120] Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd v Redbro Investments Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 46 ..................................................................................................... [EA.60.60] Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No 1) [2012] NSWSC 1476 ............................................................................................. [EA.192A.60] Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No 9) [2013] NSWSC 212 ................................................................................................ [EA.122.150] Chand v Azurra Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] NSWCA 227 ..................................... [EA.55.180] Chand v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 53 ...................................................... [EA.101.150] Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 2) (2000) 100 FCR 229; [2000] FCA 1010 ............................................ [EA.8.60], [EA.130.60], [EA.130.180], [EA.130.300] Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 3) (2000) 104 FCR 368 ................................ [EA.36.30] Chapmans Ltd v Davey [1998] NSWSC 148 ..................................................... [EA.75.90] Charara v Grewal [2013] NSWSC 1015 .......................................................... [EA.169.60] Charltons CJC Pty Ltd v Fitzgerald [2013] NSWSC 350 ............................... [EA.55.180] Cheers v El Davo Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] FCA 144 .................... [EA.26.150], [EA.42.60] Chen v City Convenience Leasing Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 297 ................... [EA.122.90], [EA.122.150] Chen v Zhang [2009] NSWCA 202 .................................................................. [EA.140.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Chevalley v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2011) 82 NSWLR 634; 217 A Crim R 240; [2011] NSWCA 357 .................................................... [EA.178.30] Chief Executive Offıcer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd (2003) 77 ALJR 1629; 201 ALR 1; [2003] HCA 49 .......................... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] Chisari v The Queen (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 325 .......................................... [EA.33.30] Choi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 150 ............. [EA.41.300], [EA.55.340], [EA.56.60], [EA.164.180] Chong v CC Containers Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 137 ................... [EA.46.90], [EA.46.150], [EA.55.180], [EA.81.60], [EA.128.690], [EA.140.60] Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse [2005] NSWCA 295 ............................................ [EA.53.60] Christian v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 34 .......................... [EA.60.150], [EA.118.600], [EA.165.480] Christian v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 98 ................................................. [EA.101.150] Christopher v The Queen [2000] WASCA 308 ................................................ [EA.137.60] Church of Scientology v Woodward (1982) 154 CLR 25; [1982] HCA 78 .... [EA.130.210] Cioban v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 304 ................................................... [EA.165.270] Citibank Ltd v Liu; ABN Amro Bank NV v Liu [2003] NSWSC 69 ................. [EA.62.60], [EA.64.150], [EA.64.180] Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364 ...................................................................................................... [EA.79.300] Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486 ....................... [EA.76.90], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150], [EA.79.180], [EA.80.90], [EA.80.150] Clark v The Queen (2008) 185 A Crim R 1; [2008] NSWCCA 122 ............. [EA.29.150], [EA.37.240] Clark Equipment Credit of Australia Ltd v Como Factors Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 552 ............................................................................................ [EA.26.120] Clarke v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 260 ............................ [EA.124.60] Clarke v The Queen [2009] HCATrans 336 ..................................................... [EA.141.90] Clarke v The Queen [2013] VSCA 206 ....................................................... [EA.165A.120] Clay v The Queen [2014] VSCA 269 ........................................... [EA.55.60], [EA.66.180] Clayton Utz v Dale [2015] VSCA 186 ........................................................... [EA.128.120] Clegg v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 49 ....................................................... [EA.101.180] Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1 ............................................................ [EA.90.60] Clifford v The Queen (2004) 12 Tas R 415; [2004] TASSC 16 ....................... [EA.116.90] Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194; 74 ALJR 1348 ............. [EA.97.480], [EA.101.450] Coates v The Queen (2005) 219 CLR 196 ..................................................... [EA.138.300] Col v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 302 .................................... [EA.103.90], [EA.106.90] Col v The Queen [2014] HCATrans 236 ........................................................... [EA.106.90] Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Tormey [2009] NSWCA 135 ........... [EA.55.180] Collaroy Services Beach Club Ltd v Haywood [2007] NSWCA 21 ................. [EA.76.90], [EA.135.300], [EA.136.300] Collins v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 162 ................................................... [EA.165.510] Collins Thomson v Clayton [2002] NSWSC 366 ..................... [EA.79.300], [EA.131.270] Colne Valley Water Co v Watford & St Albans Gas Co [1948] 1 KB 500 ......................... [EA.126D.30], [EA.125.90], [EA.128.210], [NSW.CP.760] Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Donnelly (1998) 82 FCR 418 ................................................................................................................... [EA.38.60] Colquhoun v The Queen (No 1) [2013] NSWCCA 190 ................................. [EA.101.150] Combined Insurance Co of America (t/as Combined Insurance Co of Australia) v Trifunovski (No 4) [2011] FCA 271 .......................................... [EA.97.90] Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australasia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 ................................................................................ [EA.55.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxv

Table of Cases

Commonwealth v Fernando [2012] FCAFC 18 ................................................ [EA.140.60] Commonwealth v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389 ................ [EA.46.150], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.60] Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604; 67 ALJR 405 ................ [EA.130.60], [EA.130.180], [EA.130.210], [EA.130.270], [EA.130.390] Commonwealth v Riley (1987) 5 FCR 8 ..................................... [EA.26.270], [EA.55.540] Commonwealth v Temwood Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 107 ................ [EA.122.150] Commonwealth v Vance (2005) 158 ACTR 47; [2005] ACTCA 35 ............... [EA.117.60], [EA.118.240], [EA.118.330] Commonwealth Bank of Australia v McConnell (unreported, NSW SC, Rolfe J, 10 July 1997) ................................................................................ [EA.122.390] Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia Pty Ltd v Cassegrain [2002] NSWSC 980 ............................................................... [EA.26.300], [EA.79.330] Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (2007) 162 FCR 466; 242 ALR 643; [2007] FCAFC 132 ........................................................ [EA.55.180], [EA.140.60] Compass Airlines Pty Ltd, Re (1992) 35 FCR 447 .......................................... [EA.125.90] Comptroller-General of Customs v Kingswood Distillery Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sully J, 11 February 1997) ............................ [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] Connex Group Australia Pty Ltd v Butt [2004] NSWSC 379 ....... [EA.76.90], [EA.78.60] Constantinou v The Queen [2015] VSCA 177 ................................................... [EA.66.60] Controlled Consultants Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Corporate Affairs (1985) 156 CLR 385; 59 ALJR 254 .......................................................... [EA.128.330] Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910 .................................................................... [EA.130.60] Conway v The Queen (2000) 98 FCR 204; 172 ALR 185; [2000] FCA 461 ......................... [EA.55.150], [EA.65.60], [EA.65.120], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.210], [EA.101.150], [EA.165.360], [EA.165.450] Conway v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 203 ............................. [EA.164.90], [EA.165.210] Cooke v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (2002) 51 ATR 223 ........................ [EA.79.210] Cooper v Hobbs [2013] NSWCA 70 ................ [EA.55.180], [EA.118.600], [EA.122.150] Cooper v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 258 .............................. [EA.79.240], [EA.97.120] Cooper v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 190 .......................................... [EA.141.150] Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1981) 147 CLR 297 .................................................................................. [EA.106.270] Copley v The Queen [2000] FCA 994 ............................................................. [EA.110.120] Copmanhurst Shire Council v Watt (2005) 140 LGERA 333; [2005] NSWCA 245 ................................................................................................. [EA.106.90] Cordelia Holdings Pty Ltd v Newkey Investment Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1018 ...................... [EA.57.120], [EA.58.60] Corke v The Queen (1989) 41 A Crim R 292 ................................................ [EA.114.330] Cornwell v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 260; 169 A Crim R 89; 81 ALJR 840; [2007] HCA 12 ........... [EA.Intro.270], [EA.48.270], [EA.128.90], [EA.128.120], [EA.128.600], [EA.128.660], [EA.128.720] Cornwell v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 59 ......................... [EA.138.150], [EA.141.120] Coshott v Burke [2013] FCA 513 ................... [EA.131.150], [EA.131.270], [EA.131.510] Coshott v Prentice [2014] FCAFC 88 ............................................................. [EA.140.120] Cotter v The Queen [2011] VSCA 240 ............................................................. [EA.141.90] Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Franklin [2014] NSWCA 329 ................................ [EA.64.150], [EA.64.180], [EA.64.240], [EA.68.90] Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Power [2008] NSWCA 135 ................................................................................................. [EA.55.180] Cox v New South Wales (2007) 71 NSWLR 225; [2007] NSWSC 471 ........... [EA.13.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Cox v The Queen [2015] VSCA 28 .................................................................. [EA.98.120] Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; 117 A Crim R 222 .............. [EA.165.450], [EA.165B.270] Crawley v Vero Insurance Ltd (No 7) [2014] NSWSC 80 ................................. [EA.91.60] Creditors Trust Deed Established in the Administration of Bevillesta Pty Ltd, In the matter of [2011] NSWSC 1419 ............................................... [EA.122.360] Creighton v Barnes (No 2) (unreported, NSW SC, Cohen J, 18 September 1995) .............................................................................................................. [EA.69.240] Crescent Farm (Sidcup) Sports Ltd v Sterling Offıces Ltd [1972] Ch 553 ...... [EA.125.90] Crime Commission (NSW) v Cassar (2012) 224 A Crim R 448; [2012] NSWSC 1170 ............................................................................ [EA.57.120], [EA.75.90] Crime Commission (NSW) v Vu [2009] NSWCA 349 ...................................... [EA.75.120] Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; 88 A Crim R 232; [1996] HCA 22 ................. [EA.101.150], [EA.164.90], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480], [EA.165.540], [EA.165.570] Crown Glass & Aluminium Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2005] NSWCA 195 ............. [EA.144.60], [EA.144.120] Cubillo v Commonwealth (2000) 103 FCR 1 ................................................... [EA.140.60] Cumberland v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 377 .................... [EA.116.90], [EA.165.210] Cureton v Blackshaw Services Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 187 ......................... [EA.128.540] Custom Coaches (Sales) Pty Ltd v Frankish [2002] NSWSC 781 .................... [EA.83.60] Cutts v Head [1984] 2 WLR 349 .................................................................... [EA.131.420] Cvetkovic v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 329 ....... [EA.65.60], [EA.65.300], [EA.73.60], [EA.157.30], [EA.157.60] Czako v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 202 ...................................................... [EA.79.120]

D D v NSPCC [1978] AC 171 ............................................................................ [EA.130.180] D R v The Queen [2011] VSCA 440 ................................................................ [EA.97.120] DAO v The Queen [2011] HCATrans 298 ................................ [EA.97.480], [EA.101.450] DAO v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 63 ............. [EA.97.120], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.450] D’Arrigo v Carter, in the matter of Gartner Wines Pty Ltd and the Corporations Act 2001 [2003] FCA 5 ......................................................... [EA.186.20] DEF and the Protected Estates Act 1983, Re [2005] NSWSC 534 ................ [EA.185.20] DF v The Queen [2011] ACTCA 11 ................................................................. [EA.141.90] DJF v The Queen (2011) 205 A Crim R 412; [2011] NSWCCA 6 ................ [EA.20.270], [EA.55.180], [EA.165.480] DJS v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 200 ............................... [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] DJV v The Queen (2008) 200 A Crim R 206; [2008] NSWCCA 272 ......... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] DJZ Constructions Pty Ltd v Paul Pritchard t/as Pritchard Law Group [2010] NSWSC 1024 ...................................................................................... [EA.87.90] DLJ v The Queen [2011] VSCA 389 .............................................................. [EA.101.360] DPP v BB [2010] VSCA 211 ........................................................................ [EA.Intro.270] DPP v Finnegan [2011] TASCCA 3 ......................................... [EA.192.40], [EA.192.100] DPP v Garrett [2016] VSCA 31 ................................................... [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150] DPW v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 583; [2006] NSWCCA 295 ..... [EA.165B.270], [EA.165.210] DRE v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 400; [2006] NSWCCA 280 .......... [EA.165.330] DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc (2003) 127 FCR 499; [2003] FCA 384 .......................................... [EA.117.90], [EA.118.330], [EA.122.60], [EA.122.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxvii

Table of Cases

DSJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2012) 215 A Crim R 349; [2012] NSWCCA 9 .......................................... [EA.97.150], [EA.98.120], [EA.98.150] DSJ v The Queen (2012) 215 A Crim R 349; [2012] NSWCCA 9 ................. [EA.137.90] DTS v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 329 ....................................................... [EA.165.480] DW v The Queen (2014) 239 A Crim R 192; [2014] NSWCCA 28 ............ [EA.138.450], [EA.138.570] Dahlenburg v Dahlenburg (1996) 7 BPR 14,885 ............................................... [EA.51.60] Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492; [2001] NSWCA 87 .............. [EA.140.120] Daniel v Western Australia (2000) 178 ALR 542 ........................ [EA.76.90], [EA.79.240] Daniel v Western Australia (2001) 186 ALR 369; [2001] FCA 223 ................ [EA.82.30], [EA.87.90], [EA.136.180] Daniels v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 372 .................................................... [EA.79.150] Daniels v Western Australia (2000) 173 ALR 51; [2000] FCA 413 ................. [EA.64.90] Daniels v Western Australia (2012) 226 A Crim R 61; [2012] WASCA 213 ................................................................................................................. [EA.97.120] Darlaston v Parker [2010] FCA 771 .................................................................. [EA.67.60] Darwiche v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 62 ................................................... [EA.55.180] Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; 85 ALJR 694; [2011] HCA 21 ......... [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.270], [EA.55.270], [EA.56.120], [EA.76.90], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240] Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc 509 US 579 (1993) ................ [EA.79.120], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.300] Daunt v Daunt [2015] VSCA 58 ......................................................................... [EA.91.60] Davidson v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 150 ............................................... [EA.141.120] Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378 ............................. [EA.165.360] Davies v Nyland (1974) 10 SASR 76 ................................................................. [EA.81.60] Davies v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170 .......... [EA.114.240], [EA.114.300], [EA.115.360] Davies v The Queen [2014] VSCA 284 ............................................................ [EA.20.180] Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170 ................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga [2004] NSWCA 34 ................. [EA.46.150] Davis v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 258 ..................................................... [EA.141.120] Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25 ......................................... [EA.60.60] Dawson v The Queen (1961) 106 CLR 1 ......................................................... [EA.141.90] Dawson v The Queen (1990) 2 WAR 458 ...................................................... [EA.114.240] Day v Couch [2000] NSWSC 230 ...................................................................... [EA.73.90] Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 110 ......................................... [EA.103.120] Daya v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1621 ....................... [EA.131.120] Daya v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1622 ......................... [EA.79.150] De Bortoli Wines Pty Ltd v HIH Insurance Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 645 ....... [EA.4.150], [EA.69.240], [EA.75.120] De Rose v South Australia (No 4) [2001] FCA 1616 ................ [EA.64.150], [EA.64.180] De Silva v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 236 A Crim R 214; [2013] VSCA 339 .................................................................. [EA.79.90], [EA.108C.90] De Vries v The Queen [2013] VSCA 210 ......................................................... [EA.46.150] Dean-Willcocks v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2003] NSWSC 466 .... [EA.79.300], [EA.80.90] Decker v State Coroner (NSW) (1999) 46 NSWLR 415; [1999] NSWSC 369 ................................................................................................. [EA.4.180], [EA.8.90] Dennis v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 120 ................................................... [EA.141.120] Deokinanan v The Queen [1969] 1 AC 20 ....................................................... [EA.85.120] Derbas v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 118 ..................................................... [EA.165.90] Derbas v The Queen (2012) 221 A Crim R 13; [2012] NSWCCA 14 ...... [EA.131A.120], [EA.130.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Derwish v The Queen [2016] VSCA 72 ............ [EA.98.120], [EA.98.420], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.330] Destanovic v The Queen [2015] VSCA 113 ................................................... [EA.102.120] Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; 139 A Crim R 41; 77 ALJR 1433; [2003] HCA 40 ............ [EA.Intro.350], [EA.81.60], [EA.116.90], [EA.165.480] Dibbs v The Queen (2012) 225 A Crim R 195; [2012] VSCA 224 ............... [EA.97.480], [EA.98.450] Dickman v The Queen [2015] VSCA 311 ...... [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240], [EA.137.210] Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57 ........................... [EA.11.90] Dimkovski v Ken’s Painting & Decorating Services Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 50 .................................................................................................. [EA.119.120] Director, Offıce of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FCAFC 8 ......... [EA.46.60], [EA.55.180], [EA.140.120] Director-General, Dept of Community Services v D [2006] NSWSC 827 ......................... [EA.126B.150], [EA.126B.210] Director General of Department of Community Services; Re Sophie [2008] NSWCA 250 ..................................................................................... [EA.140.60] Director Public Prosecutions v Curran (No 2) [2011] VSC 280 ...................... [EA.32.90] Director of Public Prosecutions v Azizi (No 2) [2012] VSC 600 ...................... [EA.67.90] Director of Public Prosecutions v BB [2010] VSCA 211 ......... [EA.59.180], [EA.65.270], [EA.135.150], [EA.137.60] Director of Public Prosecutions v Carr (2002) 127 A Crim R 151; [2002] NSWSC 194 ....................... [EA.138.120], [EA.138.150], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570] Director of Public Prosecutions v Coe [2003] NSWSC 363 ......................... [EA.138.150] Director of Public Prosecutions v Curran (No 1) [2011] VSC 279 ................ [EA.65.150] Director of Public Prosecutions v Donald [1999] NSWSC 949 .................... [EA.114.180] Director of Public Prosecutions v Finnegan [2011] TASCCA 3 .................... [EA.38.150], [EA.137.60] Director of Public Prosecutions v Gibson [2012] VSC 297 ................................ [EA.8.90] Director of Public Prosecutions v Kane (1997) 140 FLR 468 ..................... [EA.122.210], [EA.123.90] Director of Public Prosecutions v Langford [2012] NSWSC 310 ................. [EA.138.540] Director of Public Prosecutions v Leonard (2001) 53 NSWLR 227; [2001] NSWSC 797 ............................................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.138.570] Director of Public Prosecutions v MD [2010] VSCA 233 .... [EA.138.540], [EA.138.720] Director of Public Prosecutions v Marijancevic (2011) 219 A Crim R 344; [2011] VSCA 355 ............... [EA.138.60], [EA.138.210], [EA.138.240], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570], [EA.138.720] Director of Public Prosecutions v McRae [2010] VSC 114 ...... [EA.38.300], [EA.55.180] Director of Public Prosecutions v Nair (2009) 170 ACTR 15; 236 FLR 239; [2009] ACTCA 17 ............................................................ [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150] Director of Public Prosecutions v Nicholls (2001) 123 A Crim R 66 ............ [EA.59.180], [EA.66.60], [EA.138.570] Director of Public Prosecutions v Nicholls (2010) 204 A Crim R 306; [2010] VSC 397 .................................................................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Director of Public Prosecutions v Smiles (1993) 30 NSWLR 248 ................... [EA.18.60] Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (1996) 86 A Crim R 308 ............... [EA.130.150] Director of Public Prosecutions v The Queen [2007] EWHC 1842 ................. [EA.13.90], [EA.13.240] Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) v Hiep (1998) 86 FCR 33 ................... [EA.75.90] Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276 ............... [EA.141.120] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxix

Table of Cases

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Galloway [2014] VSCA 272 .......... [EA.123.60], [EA.123.90] Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kane (1997) 140 FLR 468 ........... [EA.Intro.120] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v AM (2006) 161 A Crim R 219; [2006] NSWSC 348 ........................................................... [EA.138.120], [EA.138.150] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Alderman (1998) 45 NSWLR 526; 104 A Crim R 116 ................................................................................ [EA.90.120] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v CAD [2003] NSWSC 196 .......... [EA.138.120], [EA.138.420] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Earl Burns [2010] NSWCA 265 .... [EA.27.120] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 ............... [EA.26.60] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Gramelis [2010] NSWSC 787 ..... [EA.144.120] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v JG (2010) 220 A Crim R 19; [2010] NSWCCA 222 .......... [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150], [EA.137.210] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Pinn [2015] NSWSC 1684 .............. [EA.58.60] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tong (2004) 151 A Crim R 296; [2004] NSWSC 689 ...................................................................................... [EA.79.240] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Zhang (2007) 48 MVR 78; [2007] NSWSC 308 ...................................................................................... [EA.189.40] Director of Public Prosecutions (Tas) v Cook (2006) 166 A Crim R 234; [2006] TASSC 75 ..................................................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.85.300] Director of Public Prosecutions (Tas) v Lynch (2006) 166 A Crim R 327; [2006] TASSC 89 ........................................................................................ [EA.114.240] Director of Public Prosecutions (UK) v Boardman [1975] AC 421 .............. [EA.101.120] Director of Public Prosecutions (UK) v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729 .............. [EA.165.330] Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v BB (2010) 29 VR 110; [2010] VSCA 211 ................................................................................................... [EA.165.270] Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Newman [2015] VSCA 25 ................. [EA.55.60], [EA.110.60] Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Pace [2015] VSCA 18 ...................... [EA.55.270] Divall v Mifsud [2005] NSWCA 447 ..................................... [EA.122.210], [EA.165.450] Dixon v Whisprun Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 344 ........................ [EA.55.270], [EA.79.240] Doble v The Queen [2015] VSCA 265 ................................... [EA.165.240], [EA.165.450] Dodds v The Queen (2009) 194 A Crim R 408; [2009] NSWCCA 78 ............ [EA.33.30], [EA.79.120] Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343; 119 A Crim R 416; 182 ALR 1; [2001] HCA 46 .................................... [EA.165.330], [EA.165.450], [EA.165B.240] Doklu v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 333; [2010] NSWCCA 309 .......... [EA.85.210] Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 ........................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.300], [EA.165.480] Domican v The Queen (No 3) (1990) 46 A Crim R 428 ............................... [EA.104.180] Donaghey v Donaghey [2011] FamCA 13 ........................................................ [EA.144.60] Donaghy v Wentworth Area Health Service [2003] NSWSC 533 ................... [EA.28.120] Donai v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 173 .............................. [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120] Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; 65 ALJR 1 ................................. [EA.165.480] Donohoe v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 176 ......................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180] Dookheea v The Queen [2016] VSCA 67 ......................................................... [EA.141.90] Doolan v Renkon Pty Ltd [2011] TASFC 4 ...................................................... [EA.55.180] Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 158 ................................................................................................. [EA.55.180] Dorajay Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Ltd (2008) 67 ACSR 1311; [2008] FCA 1311 ...................................................................................................... [EA.160.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxx

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Doran Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq), Re (2002) 168 FLR 116; 194 ALR 101; [2002] NSWSC 215 ......... [EA.4.150], [EA.118.90], [EA.124.60], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.480] Douglas v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 419 ................................................. [EA.165.480] Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 .......................................................... [EA.141.150] Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317; [2003] HCA 51 ................... [EA.81.210] Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 339 ..................... [EA.27.60] Downes v Maxwell Richard Rhys & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] VSCA 193 .... [EA.55.180] Doyle v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 4 ................... [EA.11.60], [EA.38.60], [EA.46.60], [EA.101.360], [EA.103.120], [EA.108.150], [EA.141.120] Drabsch v Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd [1999] NSWSC 765 ........ [EA.39.120] Drabsch v Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd [1999] NSWSC 975 ...... [EA.122.300] Drambo Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp Ltd (1996) 33 ATR 255 .............. [EA.135.210] Drash v The Queen [2012] VSCA 33 ............................................................... [EA.46.150] Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517 ........................... [EA.137.150], [EA.165.450] Dubbo City Council v Barrett [2003] NSWCA 267 ....................................... [EA.122.330] Duke v The Queen (1989) 63 ALJR 139 ............................................................ [EA.90.60] Duke of Buccleuch v Metropolitan Board of Works (1871) LR 5 HL 418 .... [EA.129.180] Dumoo v Gardner (1998) 143 FLR 245 ........................................................... [EA.90.260] Duncan v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 84 ...................................................... [EA.69.180] Dunks v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 134 .................................................... [EA.108.150] Dunstan v Orr (2008) 171 IR 135; [2008] FCA 31 ............... [EA.121.150], [EA.122.210] Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237 .......................................................... [EA.11.90] Dupas v The Queen (2012) 40 VR 182; 218 A Crim R 507; [2012] VSCA 328 ..... [EA.Intro.270], [EA.Intro.300], [EA.101A.90], [EA.101A.120], [EA.108C.60], [EA.108C.90], [EA.108C.120], [EA.65.240], [EA.79.120], [EA.80.150], [EA.135.270], [EA.137.90], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.390], [EA.190.120] Dupont v Chief Commissioner of Police (2015) 295 FLR 283; [2015] FamCAFC 64 .............................................. [EA.130.60], [EA.130.120], [EA.131A.60] Dutton v O’Shane [2002] NSWSC 1086 ............................................................ [EA.4.180] Dwyer v Calco Timbers Pty Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 124; [2008] HCA 13 ..... [EA.101.450], [EA.137.210] Dyball v The Harden Shire Council [2004] NSWSC 486 .............................. [EA.118.390] Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285; 76 ALJR 1552; [2002] HCA 45 ...................... [EA.20.300], [EA.20.420], [EA.55.180] Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd v Jones [2008] NSWCA 56 ......................... [EA.135.150], [EA.135.210] D’Apice v Gutkovich – Estate of Abraham (No 1) [2010] NSWSC 1336 ...... [EA.121.90]

E E v Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 31 FCR 299 .................................... [EA.80.150] EI Dupont de Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries plc (2002) 54 IPR 304; [2002] FCA 230 ............................................... [EA.Intro.120], [EA.55.90] ELD v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 413 ................................. [EA.97.390], [EA.101.420] ES v The Queen (No 1) [2010] NSWCCA 197 ...................... [EA.101.150], [EA.137.120] ES v The Queen (No 2) [2010] NSWCCA 198 ...................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] Eagles v Orth [1976] Qd R 313 ........................................................................ [EA.79.120] Earl of Dunraven v Llewellyn (1850) 15 QB 791; 117 ER 657 ........................ [EA.74.60] Eastman v The Queen (1997) 76 FCR 9; 158 ALR 107 .......... [EA.46.150], [EA.48.180], [EA.79.150], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60], [EA.116.90], [EA.130.60], [EA.136.60], [EA.165.300], [EA.192.40] Easwaralingam v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] VSCA 353 ............. [EA.67.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxi

Table of Cases

Ebatarinja v Deland (1998) 194 CLR 444 ......................................................... [EA.30.60] Eden Productions Pty Ltd v Southern Star Group Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1166 ............................................................................................................. [EA.122.210] Edmunds-Jones Pty Ltd v Australian Women’s Hockey Assn Inc [1999] NSWSC 285 ........................................................................... [EA.69.240], [EA.190.80] Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; 68 ALJR 40; 68 A Crim R 349 ............................................ [EA.55.330], [EA.81.60], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] Edwards v Transport Accident Commission [2013] VSC 557 ....................... [EA.131.480] Edwards v Vic Land Rehabilitation [2012] VSC 188 ............. [EA.117.120], [EA.122.60], [EA.122.360] Eire Contractors Pty Ltd v O’Brien [2012] NSWCA 400 ........................... [EA.Intro.340] El-Azzi v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1056 .............................. [EA.103.60] El-Haddad v The Queen (2015) 88 NSWLR 93; 293 FLR 284; [2015] NSWCCA 10 ...... [EA.95.60], [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120], [EA.98.180], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.360] El-Hilli v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 289 .................................................. [EA.101.150] El-Zayet v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 298 ...................... [EA.131A.90], [EA.122.120], [EA.122.180] Electronic Rentals Pty Ltd, Ex parte; Re Anderson [1970] 3 NSWR 355 .... [EA.129.180] Elias v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 365 .................................. [EA.97.240], [EA.97.450] Ellis v The Queen [2010] VSCA 302 .............................................................. [EA.165.480] Elomar v The Queen (2014) 300 FLR 323; [2014] NSWCCA 303 ............... [EA.55.330], [EA.87.120], [EA.97.60], [EA.97.120], [EA.101.150], [EA.137.60] Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67; 81 ALJR 1896; [2007] HCA 46 ......... [EA.90.60], [EA.90.90], [EA.90.150], [EA.90.180], [EA.90.330], [EA.90.360], [EA.138.60], [EA.138.720], [EA.165.270] Employment Advocate v Williamson (2001) 111 FCR 20; 185 ALR 590; 50 AILR 4–498; [2001] FCA 1164 ............ [EA.138.60], [EA.138.510], [EA.138.690], [EA.140.60] Enoch and Zaretzky, Bock & Co Arbitration, Re [1910] 1 KB 327 ................ [EA.26.120] Ensham Resources Pty Ltd v Aioi Insurance Co Ltd (2012) 209 FCR 1; [2012] FCAFC 191 ....................................................................................... [EA.133.60] Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477 ........................................................................ [EA.128.300], [EA.187.20] Environment Protection Authority v Queanbeyan City Council (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 159 ................................................................................ [EA.131A.90] Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152 ................................................................................... [EA.191.60] Environment Protection Authority v Unomedical Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 111 ................................................................................................. [EA.53.60] Epeabaka v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) 150 ALR 397 ...................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.30], [EA.4.150], [EA.5.30], [EA.8.60] Eric Preston Pty Ltd v Euroz Securities Ltd [2009] FCA 240 ....................... [EA.118.210] Eric Preston Pty Ltd v Euroz Securities Ltd [2011] FCAFC 11; 274 ALR 705 ................................................................................................................. [EA.55.270] Erohin v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 102 ........................ [EA.165B.270], [EA.101.360] Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49 .......................... [EA.118.90], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.390], [EA.118.570] Evans v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 521, 179 A Crim R 232, 82 ALJR 250, 241 ALR 400; [2007] HCA 59 .................. [EA.37.120], [EA.52.30], [EA.53.60], [EA.53.90], [EA.53.120], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.210], [EA.55.300], [EA.56.210], [EA.114.240], [EA.137.120], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.450], [EA.165B.210] Ewen v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 117 ....... [EA.141.90], [EA.165.480], [EA.165.540] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxxii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Ewin v Vergara (No 2) [2012] FCA 1518 ....................................................... [EA.128.450] Executor Trustee & Agency Co of SA v Insurance Offıce of Australia [1949] SASR 337 ............................................................................................ [EA.87.90] Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303; 88 ALJR 76; [2013] HCA 46 ............................................................. [EA.122.120], [EA.122.180]

F FB v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 217 ............. [EA.27.120], [EA.97.120], [EA.101.240] FCT v Industrial Equity Ltd (2000) 98 FCR 573; 171 ALR 1 .......................... [EA.48.60] FDP v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 317 ...... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] FGC v Western Australia (2008) 183 A Crim R 313; [2008] WASCA 47 .... [EA.165.450] FGT Custodians Pty Ltd v Fagenblat [2003] VSCA 33 .................................. [EA.79.300] FH v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 231 ................................... [EA.55.180], [EA.101.360] FMJ v The Queen [2011] VSCA 308 ................... [EA.85.300], [EA.90.360], [EA.137.60] FV v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 237 ............................................................ [EA.191.20] Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437 ........................................................ [EA.55.180] Facton Ltd v Seo [2011] FCA 344 .................................................................... [EA.79.150] Fair Work Ombudsman v Valuair Ltd [2014] FCA 404 ................................... [EA.81.240] Falcon v Famous Players Film Co [1926] 2 KB 474 ...................................... [EA.81.180] Farkas v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 141 ....................................................... [EA.4.270] Farquharson v The Queen [2012] VSCA 296 .................................................. [EA.55.330] Farrell v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 286; 155 ALR 652 ....... [EA.79.300], [EA.80.150], [EA.106.240], [EA.165.480] Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Webb (1996) 39 NSWLR 601 ............................................................................................................... [EA.122.360] Farrugia v Jindi Woraback Children’s Centre Inc [2011] VSC 250 .............. [EA.79.300], [EA.80.90] Faucett v St George Bank Ltd [2003] NSWCA 43 ............................................ [EA.80.90] Feltafield Pty Ltd v Heidelberg Graphic Equipment (1995) 56 FCR 481 ...... [EA.69.120] Fenwick v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 353 ....................... [EA.118.150], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.270] Ferguson v The Queen [2015] VSCA 279 ........... [EA.55.60], [EA.101.360], [EA.137.60] Feridun Akcan v Gabriel Cross [2013] NSWSC 403 ...................................... [EA.124.60] Fermiscan Ltd v James [2009] NSWSC 462 .................................................. [EA.131.450] Fernando v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 975 ........................................................ [EA.130.60], [EA.130.300] Ferrall v Blyton (2000) 27 Fam LR 178; [2000] FLC 93–054; [2000] FamCA 1442 .............................................. [EA.128.120], [EA.128.150], [EA.128.780] Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72 .......................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.210], [EA.114.240], [EA.114.330], [EA.115.300], [EA.116.90], [EA.116.120], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150], [EA.165.300], [EA.165.450] Fexuto Pty Ltd v Bosnjak Holdings Pty Ltd [1998] NSWSC 293 ..................... [EA.27.60] Field v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1957) 99 CLR 285 ................. [EA.131.120], [EA.131.210], [EA.131.270] Filippou v The Queen (2015) 89 ALJR 776; [2015] HCA 29 ....................... [EA.165.150] Finance Sector Union of Australia v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1389 ................................................................................... [EA.193.60] Finchill Pty Ltd v Abdel-Messih (unreported, NSW SC, Levine J, 13 July 1998) ................................................................................................................ [EA.26.60] Finlay v The Queen [2009] HCATrans 17 ...................................................... [EA.165.300] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxiii

Table of Cases

First Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Sylvatech Ltd (2004) 186 FLR 266; [2004] NSWSC 846 .................................................................................... [EA.131.150] Fitness Australia Ltd v Copyright Tribunal [2010] FCAFC 148 ....................... [EA.76.90] Fitz-Gibbon v Wily (1998) 87 FCR 104 ................................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] Fleet v District Court of NSW [1999] NSWCA 363 ........................................ [EA.46.150] Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; 103 A Crim R 121; [1998] HCA 68 ....................................................................................................... [EA.165.150] Fleming v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 233 .......................... [EA.138.60], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.720] Fletcher v The Queen [2006] HCATrans 127 ................................................... [EA.97.480] Fletcher v The Queen [2015] VSCA 146 ........................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.18.150] Flora v The Queen 233 A Crim R 320; [2013] VSCA 192 ............................. [EA.55.330] Flower & Hart (a firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR 134 ............................................................................................. [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] Flowers v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 5 ........................................................... [EA.81.240] Foley v Tectran Corp Pty Ltd [1984] 3 NSWLR 156 .................................... [EA.130.210] Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd v Viropoulos (No 2) [2015] FCA 974 .... [EA.79.180] Forbes Engineering (Asia) Pte Ltd v Forbes (No 4) [2009] FCA 675 .......... [EA.69.180], [EA.69.210] Foreign Media v Konstantinidis [2003] NSWCA 161 ................ [EA.48.180], [EA.55.90], [EA.191.20] Forge v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2004] NSWCA 448 ................................................................................................................... [EA.80.90] Formosa House Pty Ltd v Ming Chien Chang [2010] VSC 474 ..................... [EA.160.60] Forsyth v Sinclair (No 2) [2010] VSCA 195 .................................................. [EA.131.510] Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550 .......................................................... [EA.90.60] Fowkes v Parker [1999] NSWCA 442 .............................................................. [EA.55.480] Freeman v Health Insurance Commission (1997) 78 FCR 91 ......................... [EA.55.180] Frengos v The Queen [2012] VSCA 18 ..................................... [EA.41.300], [EA.55.180] Friend v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 41 ..... [EA.106.120], [EA.108.120], [EA.108.180] Frye v United States 293 F 1012 (1923) .......................................................... [EA.79.120] Fulham Partners LLC v National Australia Bank Ltd [2013] NSWCA 296 ...................... [EA.135.150], [EA.136.90] Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales (2015) 89 ALJR 824; [2015] HCA 31 ....... [EA.140.60] Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 411 .......................... [EA.55.90] Fung v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 250 ........................................................ [EA.110.60]

G G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387 ............................................................................ [EA.140.120] GAR v The Queen (No 3) [2010] NSWCCA 165 .................... [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240] GB by his tutor FB v Western Sydney Area Health Service [2010] NSWSC 181 ............................................................................................. [EA.126B.420] GBF v The Queen [2010] VSCA 135 ............... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.136.300] GHI (a Protected Person), Re [2005] NSWSC 466 ....................................... [EA.135.180] GPI Leisure Corp Ltd v Herdsman Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) (1990) 20 NSWLR 15 .................................................................................................... [EA.26.150] GPI Leisure Corp Ltd v Yuill (1997) 42 NSWLR 225 ................................... [EA.131.270] GW v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 15 ...................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Gabriel v The Queen (1997) 76 FCR 279 .................................. [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60] Galafassi v Kelly [2014] NSWCA 190 ........... [EA.131.60], [EA.131.270], [EA.131.480], [EA.131.540] Galea v Bagtrans Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 350 ............................................... [EA.55.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxxiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Galea v Farrugia [2013] NSWCA 164 ...................................... [EA.97.120], [EA.97.450] Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 ............................................................ [EA.27.120] Gall v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 69 ......................................................... [EA.165.480] Gallant v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 339 .................................................... [EA.110.60] Galvin v The Queen (2006) 161 A Crim R 449; [2006] NSWCCA 66 ....... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.210], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.164.180] Gardiner v The Queen (2006) 162 A Crim R 233; [2006] NSWCCA 190 .... [EA.97.180], [EA.116.90], [EA.130.150] Gardner v Duve (1978) 19 ALR 695 ................................................................ [EA.81.240] Garlin v The Queen (1991) 56 A Crim R 195 ....................... [EA.114.300], [EA.115.360] Garning & Director-General, Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2012] FamCAFC 35 .................................. [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.21.210] Gate Gourmet Australia Pty Limited (in liq) v Gate Gourmet Holding AG [2004] NSWSC 768 ........................................................................................ [EA.50.30] Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208; 82 ALJR 149; [2007] HCA 55 ....................... [EA.165.480] Gattellaro v Westpac Banking Corp (2004) 78 ALJR 394; 204 ALR 258; [2004] HCA 6 ............................................... [EA.Intro.120], [EA.144.60], [EA.144.90] Gebert v The Queen (1992) 60 SASR 110 ....................................................... [EA.141.90] Gedeon v The Queen (2013) 237 A Crim R 326; [2013] NSWCCA 257 .... [EA.128.510], [EA.128.540], [EA.138.210], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570] Gentry v The Queen [2016] VSCA 54 ...................................... [EA.55.340], [EA.164.180] George Mkari by his next friend Youssef Mkari v Meza [2005] NSWCA 136 ................................................................................................................... [EA.46.60] Georgeski v Owners Corp SP49833 [2004] NSWSC 945 ......... [EA.11.90], [EA.125.120] Geyer v Redeland Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 338 ............................................. [EA.140.120] Ghazal v GIO (1992) 29 NSWLR 336 ............................................................. [EA.46.150] Ghebrat v The Queen [2011] VSCA 299 ............................................................ [EA.60.60] Giallombardo v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 25 .......................................... [EA.165.480] Gilham v The Queen (2012) 224 A Crim R 22; [2012] NSWCCA 131 .......... [EA.38.60], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.90], [EA.56.90], [EA.79.180], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.150] Gillett v Murphy [2001] NSWCA 199 ................................................................ [EA.54.60] Gillett v Nelson [2014] NSWSC 115 ................................................................ [EA.121.90] Gillies v Downer EDI Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1323 ................... [EA.122.180], [EA.122.330] Gilmour v Environment Protection Authority [2002] NSWCCA 399 ............. [EA.18.120], [EA.18.180], [EA.135.150], [EA.137.60] Giourtalis v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 216 ................................................ [EA.46.150] Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106; 72 ALJR 1012; 155 ALR 15 ...... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] Gladio Pty Ltd v Buckworth [2015] NSWSC 922 .................. [EA.131.60], [EA.131.120], [EA.131.270] Glass v Demarco [1999] FCA 482 ......................................... [EA.131.480], [EA.131.540] Glass v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 8 ..................................... [EA.101.360], [EA.165.480] Global Medical Imaging Management Ltd (in liq) v Australian Mezzanine Investments Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 430 .................................................. [EA.122.210] Global Medical Imaging Management Ltd (in liq), Re [2001] NSWSC 476 ............................................................................................................... [EA.119.120] Godfrey v New South Wales (No 1) [2003] NSWSC 160 ........... [EA.76.90], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150] Goldberg v Ng (1996) 185 CLR 83 .................................................................. [EA.122.60] Goldsmith v Sandilands (2002) 190 ALR 370; [2002] HCA 31 ................. [EA.101A.120] Goldsworthy v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 290 .................... [EA.48.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxv

Table of Cases

Gondarra v Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] FCA 185 .......................................................... [EA.192A.60] Gonzales v Claridades [2003] NSWSC 508 ....................................................... [EA.92.90] Gonzales v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 321 ....................... [EA.41.300], [EA.Intro.350] Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187 ............................ [EA.165.450] Goodridge v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 37 ................................................. [EA.79.480] Gordian Runoff Ltd v Price [2004] NSWSC 600 ........................................... [EA.122.240] Gordon v Ross [2006] NSWCA 157 ........................................... [EA.69.120], [EA.69.150] Gorman v Cook [2002] NSWSC 1149 .................................... [EA.118.360], [EA.119.120] Grace v Grace [2010] NSWSC 1514 ............................................................. [EA.122.210] Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606; 102 A Crim R 438; [1998] HCA 1 ............... [EA.66.180], [EA.81.60], [EA.89.150], [EA.101.450], [EA.108.150], [EA.108.210], [EA.137.210], [EA.192.100], [EA.Intro.180] Granada Tavern v Smith (2008) 173 IR 328; [2008] FCA 646 ....................... [EA.140.60] Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 ..................................... [EA.118.360], [EA.118.390] Grant v The Queen (1975) 11 ALR 503 ......................................................... [EA.141.120] Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 38 FCR 95; 65 A Crim R 12 ......... [EA.114.300], [EA.115.360], [EA.116.90] Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co [1981] 1 WLR 529; [1981] 2 All ER 485 ................................................................................... [EA.122.180] Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd (in liq) v Clarke [2012] VSCA 207 ................................................................................................................. [EA.124.60] Greek Case, The (1969) 12 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 186 .......................................................................................... [EA.84.60] Green v AMP Life [2005] NSWSC 95 .................................... [EA.118.150], [EA.121.150] Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28 .......................................................... [EA.141.90] Green v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 575 ........................................................... [EA.81.60] Greenough v Eccles (1859) 2 CB (NS) 786 ....................................................... [EA.38.60] Greensill v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 416; [2012] VSCA 306 ..... [EA.165B.150], [EA.165B.210], [EA.165B.300], [EA.165.480] Grey v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 1708 ....................................................... [EA.165.450] Griffın v Pantzer (2004) 137 FCR 209; 207 ALR 169; [2004] FCAFC 113 .... [EA.4.150] Griffıth v ABC [2003] NSWSC 483 .......................... [EA.48.180], [EA.51.60], [EA.55.90] Grosvenor v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 5 ......................................................... [EA.81.60] Groundstroem v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 237 .......... [EA.165B.210], [EA.165B.300] Gruber v Blake [2003] NSWCA 256 ................................................................ [EA.46.150] Grubisic v Western Australia [2011] WASCA 147; 210 A Crim R 457 ........ [EA.165.450] Grundy v Lewis (unreported, FCA, Cooper J, 14 September 1998) ............. [EA.122.330], [EA.122.390] Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance of New Zealand Ltd v Stuart [1985] 1 NZLR 596 ................................................................................................ [EA.118.390] Gudjala People # 2 v Native Title Registrar [2008] FCAFC 157 ................... [EA.79.240] Guest v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 193 ......................... [EA.69.180] Guide Dog Owners’ & Friends’ Association Inc v Guide Dog Association (NSW & ACT) (1998) 154 ALR 527 ......................................... [EA.76.90], [EA.78.60] Guinness Peat Properties Ltd v Fitzroy Robinson Partnership [1987] 1 WLR 1027 ........................................................................... [EA.118.360], [EA.118.390] Gumana v Northern Territory [2005] FCA 50 ................ [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.74.60], [EA.79.300] Gusdote Pty Ltd v Ashley [2011] FCA 250 ...................................................... [EA.160.60] Guthrie v Spence [2009] NSWCA 369 ....................................... [EA.60.60], [EA.136.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxxvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

H H v Schering Chemicals Ltd [1983] 1 All ER 849 .................... [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414; 73 ALJR 281; [1999] HCA 2 ......... [EA.55.270], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240] HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; 82 ALJR 723; 245 ALR 204; [2008] HCA 16 ................... [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.210], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] HMP Industries Pty Ltd v Graham (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 17 July 1996) ................................................... [EA.128.120], [EA.128.330], [EA.128.540] HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Clements [2014] NSWSC 213 ......... [EA.168.60], [EA.169.120] HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Clements [2014] NSWSC 290 .......... [EA.69.150], [EA.69.180], [EA.169.90], [EA.169.120] Habib v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 34 ................ [EA.84.60], [EA.84.90], [EA.84.120] Habib v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 261 ....................................................... [EA.110.60] Hadchiti v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 63 .................................................... [EA.141.90] Haddara v The Queen (2014) 43 VR 53; 241 A Crim R 93; [2014] VSCA 100 ...................... [EA.11.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.90.300], [EA.137.240], [EA.Intro.120] Hadgkiss v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2006] FCA 941 ................................................................................................................... [EA.38.60] Hadid v Australis Media Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 5 November 1996) ............................ [EA.26.150], [EA.32.60], [EA.32.90], [EA.39.120] Hadid v Australis Media Ltd (No 2) (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 28 October 1996) ............................................................................................. [EA.108.150] Hague v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2008] NSWSC 253 ................ [EA.11.60] Hakim v Waterways Authority of New South Wales [2006] NSWCCA 376 .... [EA.55.180] Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423 ............................................... [EA.75.90] Halverson v Dobler [2006] NSWSC 1307 ....................................................... [EA.26.300] Hamberger (Employment Advocate) v Williamson and CFMEU [2000] FCA 1644 .................................................................................................... [EA.138.390] Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486 .............. [EA.11.60], [EA.128.90], [EA.128.600] Hamilton-Smith v George [2006] FCA 1551 .............................. [EA.26.270], [EA.55.540] Hammond v Hammond [2010] NSWSC 331 .................................................... [EA.55.180] Hammoud Brothers Pty Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd [2004] NSWCA 366 ................................................................................................................. [EA.140.60] Hamod v New South Wales (No 10) [2008] NSWSC 611 ............................... [EA.136.60] Hamod v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] NSWCA 243 ...................... [EA.79.120] Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Limited [2011] NSWCA 11 ....... [EA.79.240] Hancock v Rinehart [2013] NSWSC 1978 ..................................................... [EA.122.150] Hanna v The Queen [2014] VSCA 187 .......................................................... [EA.101.360] Hannaford v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSW) [2013] NSWSC 1708 .............................................. [EA.118.330], [EA.122.330] Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) (2006) 165 A Crim R 151; 205 FLR 217; [2006] NSWCCA 373 ............. [EA.Intro.270], [EA.8.60], [EA.37.90], [EA.37.180], [EA.39.180], [EA.55.180], [EA.79.60], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240], [EA.137.120], [EA.141.90], [EA.141.120] Hansen Beverage Co v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 406 ......... [EA.69.120] Haoui v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 209 ....... [EA.79.300], [EA.135.210], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120] Harbours Corp of Queensland v Vessey Chemicals Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 60 ......................................................................................... [EA.130.210], [EA.130.300] Harden Shire Council v Curtis [2009] NSWCA 179 ............. [EA.118.210], [EA.119.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxvii

Table of Cases

Hargraves v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 257; 85 ALJR 1254; 218 A Crim R 123; [2011] HCA 44 ..................... [EA.104.120], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Harkins v Butcher (2002) 55 NSWLR 558; [2002] NSWCA 237 .............. [EA.Intro.120] Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 ......................... [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.136.60] Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (2002) 121 FCR 82; [2002] FCA 934 ........................................................ [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.21.210], [EA.26.150] Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (No 2) (2003) 130 FCR 424; [2003] FCA 893 ................ [EA.55.60], [EA.79.60], [EA.79.240], [EA.79.270], [EA.136.180], [EA.Intro.350] Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (No 7) (2003) 130 FCR 424; [2003] FCA 893 ........................................................................................................ [EA.55.270] Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v Western Australia (No 4) (2003) 197 ALR 131; [2003] FCA 17 ............................................... [EA.67.90] Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v Western Australia (No 7) [2003] FCA 893 .............................................................................. [EA.136.180] Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v Western Australia (No 8) [2004] FCA 338 .......................................................... [EA.67.90], [EA.135.150] Harris v Bellemore [2009] NSWSC 1497 ...................................................... [EA.108C.90] Harris v The Queen (2005) 158 A Crim R 454; [2005] NSWCCA 432 ......... [EA.65.150] Harris v The Queen [2006] HCATrans 247 ...................................................... [EA.65.150] Harris v The Queen (2015) 44 VR 652; [2015] VSCA 112 ....... [EA.98.60], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.180] Harris/D-E Pty Ltd v McClelland’s Coffee & Tea Pty Ltd (1999) 149 FLR 204; [1999] NSWSC 36 ............................................................................... [EA.194.20] Hart v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCAFC 105 ...................................... [EA.46.60] Hartmann v Commissioner of Police (1997) 91 A Crim R 141 ..................... [EA.128.90], [EA.128.600] Hatziandoniou v Ruddy [2015] NSWCA 234 ................................................... [EA.79.180] Hawker v The Queen [2012] VSCA 219 .......................................................... [EA.38.150] Hawksford v Hawksford [2008] NSWSC 31 ..................................................... [EA.117.90] Hayne and Bell JJ in X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92 ........................................................................................................ [EA.128.540] Healey v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 235 ................................................ [EA.165B.270] Hearne v Street (2008) 82 ALJR 1259; 248 ALR 609; [2008] HCA 36 ............................ [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] Heaton v Luczka [1998] NSWCA 104 ......................................... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] Henderson v Queensland (2014) 89 ALJR 162; [2014] HCA 52 .................... [EA.140.60] Hennessey v Broken Hill Pty Ltd (1926) 38 CLR 342 ................................... [EA.129.180] Henschke & Co v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd [1999] AIPC 91–530; [1999] FCA 1561 .................................................................... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.180] Hevi Lift (PNG) Ltd v Etherington [2005] NSWCA 42 ............ [EA.79.240], [EA.144.60] Heyward v Bishop [2015] ACTCA 58 ............................................................ [EA.138.150] Hickey v The Queen (2002) 136 A Crim R 150 ............................................. [EA.101.240] Higgins v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 56 ................................. [EA.84.60], [EA.90.270] Higgins v The Queen [2016] VSCA 47 .......................................................... [EA.101.150] Hinton by his Tutor Leslie Melba Hinton v Valiotis (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 7 March 1997) ............................................................................ [EA.32.180] Ho v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (1998) 102 A Crim R 37 ......... [EA.138.120] Ho v Powell [2001] NSWCA 168; 51 NSWLR 572 ...................................... [EA.140.120] Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; 35 A Crim R 47; [1988] HCA 50 ................. [EA.98.120], [EA.101.120], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.210], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.300], [EA.110.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xxxviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Hodgson v Amcor Ltd [2012] VSC 94 ....................................... [EA.57.210], [EA.87.180] Hodgson v Amcor Ltd (No 3) [2011] VSC 272 .................................................. [EA.76.90] Hoefler v Tomlinson (1995) 60 FCR 452 .......................................................... [EA.131.60] Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122; 237 A Crim R 589; [2014] HCA 29 ........................................ [EA.76.90], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150], [EA.79.180] Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd v Murphy (1992) 28 NSWLR 512 ......... [EA.131.300] Hothnyang v The Queen [2014] VSCA 64 ..................................................... [EA.101.150] Housden v Boral Australian Gypsum Ltd [2015] VSCA 162 .......................... [EA.46.150] House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 ......... [EA.65.240], [EA.90.360], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.450], [EA.130.420], [EA.135.300], [EA.136.300], [EA.138.720] Howell v Macquarie University [2008] NSWCA 26 ........................................ [EA.55.180] Howship Holdings Pty Ltd v Leslie (1996) 41 NSWLR 542 ........................... [EA.160.60] Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 314; [2008] FCA 369 ................ [EA.Dict.Pt.1.150], [EA.59.120], [EA.81.60], [EA.81.120], [EA.87.90] Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 15) [2013] FCA 1124 .............. [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.60], [EA.52.30], [EA.128.330] Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (Ruling No 8) [2014] VSC 567 ................................................................................. [EA.79.330] Huges v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 238 A Crim R 345; [2013] VSCA 338 ................................................................... [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60] Hughes v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 330 ......... [EA.41.300], [EA.97.60], [EA.97.120], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.450] Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia (1997) 80 FCR 276 ...................................................................................... [EA.76.90], [EA.77.60] Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia (No 3) (1997) 76 FCR 151 ..................................................................................... [EA.135.180] Hull v Thompson [2001] NSWCA 359 ............................................................. [EA.46.150] Humphries v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 319 ............................................. [EA.141.120] Huy Vinh Quach v The Queen [2011] VSCA 390 ............................................ [EA.55.180]

I IBM Global Services Australia Ltd, Re [2005] FCAFC 66 ............................... [EA.52.30] ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2004) 60 NSWLR 18; [2004] NSWCA 55 .................................................................. [EA.144.60] IMM v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 529; [2016] HCA 14 ........... [EA.55.60], [EA.56.60], [EA.66.180], [EA.79.300], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240], [EA.114.240], [EA.137.90], [EA.Intro.270], [EA.Intro.350] ING Bank (Australia) Ltd v O’Shea [2010] NSW ConvR 56–259; [2010] NSWCA 71 ..................................................................................................... [EA.54.60] ISJ v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 484; [2012] VSCA 321 ..................... [EA.66.180] Ibrahim v Pham [2004] NSWSC 650 ............................................................... [EA.97.120] Ibrahim v Pham [2007] NSWCA 215 ........................................ [EA.97.120], [EA.97.480] Idameneo (No 123) Pty Ltd v Robalino [2009] NSWSC 969 .......................... [EA.79.300] Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [1999] NSWSC 828 .............. [EA.79.180] Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 640; [2000] NSWSC 1077 ..................................... [EA.Intro.120], [EA.79.480], [EA.80.90] Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2001] NSWSC 123 ............. [EA.79.150], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xxxix

Table of Cases

Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2001] NSWSC 222 ............. [EA.75.120], [EA.118.360], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120], [EA.135.150] Idoport Pty Ltd ACN 075 318 106 [2012] NSWSC 524 ................................... [EA.60.60] Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd, Re [2012] NSWSC 568 ............................................... [EA.50.30] Ilioski v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 164 ...... [EA.114.180], [EA.116.90], [EA.165.480] Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, Minister for v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187; 153 ALR 463 .......................................................................................... [EA.48.60] Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, Minister for v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21 ............................................................................ [EA.97.480] Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, Minister for v Singh [2000] FCA 377 ...................... [EA.160.60] Imnetu v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 203 ............................. [EA.110.60], [EA.141.120] Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1084 ........................................................................... [EA.122.180] Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd [2004] NSWSC 40 ....................................................... [EA.119.120], [EA.122.330] Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd (No 4) [2006] NSWSC 90 ............................ [EA.87.60], [EA.87.90], [EA.135.90] Inspector Wade v Mid North Coast Area Health Service [2004] NSWIRComm 254 ................................................................... [EA.85.210], [EA.87.90] Insurance Australia Ltd v Checchia [2011] NSWCA 101 ..... [EA.135.210], [EA.135.300] Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v Asaner [2016] NSWSC 614 ................................................................................................................. [EA.81.210] Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948) 77 CLR 39 ...................................... [EA.55.180] Interchase Corp Ltd, Re (1996) 68 FCR 481 ..................................................... [EA.4.150] Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1991) 102 ALR 379 ........................ [EA.79.120] International FinanceTrust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission [2008] NSWCA 291 ................................................................................................... [EA.9.180] Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH v MDS Diagnostics Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 108 ........................................................................................................ [EA.69.240] Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 6) [2014] FCA 804 ................... [EA.26.150], [EA.29.90] Isherwood v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 11 ........... [EA.29.90], [EA.32.90], [EA.165.480] Iskandar v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 256 ................................................ [EA.141.150] Italiano v Western Australia [2012] WASCA 260 ............................................ [EA.46.120] Ith v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 70 ................................... [EA.101A.120], [EA.110.60] Ivanoff v The Queen [2015] VSCA 116 .......................................................... [EA.101.150]

J J v D (2006) 36 Fam LR 206; [2006] FamCA 729 ............... [EA.128.150], [EA.128.780] JA Westaway & Son Pty Ltd v Registrar General (1996) 7 BPR 14,773 ....... [EA.38.150] JB v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 12 .............................................................. [EA.90.270] JCS v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 6 ................................................................ [EA.165.450] JCS v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 221 .................................. [EA.43.180], [EA.141.120] JCT Wong v Kelly (1999) 154 FLR 200 ................................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] JD v Director-General of Department of Youth & Community Services [1998] NSWSC 353 ...................................................................................... [EA.26.150] JD v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 274 .......................................................... [EA.108.150] JDK v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 76 ......................................................... [EA.101.360] JJB v The Queen (2006) 161 A Crim R 187; [2006] NSWCCA 126 ........ [EA.165B.210], [EA.165B.270], [EA.165.450] JLS v The Queen [2010] VSCA 209 ......................................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xl

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

JP Morgan Australia Ltd v Consolidated Minerals Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 3 ..................................................................................................... [EA.55.180] JRD Ghalloub Pty Ltd v Eltobbagi [2013] NSWSC 56 .............................. [EA.128A.120] Jacara Pty Ltd v Auto-Bake Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 417 ............... [EA.55.390], [EA.97.450] Jacara Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd (2000) 106 FCR 51 ...................................... [EA.97.60], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.240], [EA.97.480], [EA.103.60] Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2008] NSWCA 312 ..................................... [EA.140.60] Jackson v Macek (2015) 296 FLR 219; [2015] FamCAFC 114 ...................... [EA.144.60] Jackson v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1229 ............................... [EA.87.150] Jackson v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 411 ................................................ [EA.Intro.350] Jaffarie v Director General of Security [2014] FCAFC 102 ........................ [EA.130.210], [EA.130.360], [EA.130.390] Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 ............................................. [EA.11.90] Jamal v The Queen (2012) 223 A Crim R 585; [2012] NSWCCA 198 .......... [EA.53.120] James v Launceston City Council [2004] TASSC 69 .................. [EA.77.60], [EA.136.60] James Hardie Industries NV v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 18 ............................................ [EA.46.60], [EA.135.120] Jango v Northern Territory (No 2) [2004] FCA 1004 ..................................... [EA.79.240] Jango v Northern Territory (No 4) [2004] FCA 1539 ................ [EA.60.120], [EA.80.90], [EA.136.180] Jardein Pty Ltd v Stathakis [2007] FCAFC 148 ................................................ [EA.46.60] Jarrett v The Queen (2014) 86 NSWLR 623; [2014] NSWCCA 140 .......... [EA.165.540], [EA.165B.180], [EA.165B.210], [EA.165B.240] Jarvis v Pike [2013] FamCAFC 196 ...................................... [EA.128.120], [EA.128.360] Jenkins v Repatriation Commission (1996) 137 ALR 729 ............................... [EA.144.60] Jenkins v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 252; [2004] HCA 57 ........................ [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360], [EA.165.480] Jess & Jess [2015] FamCA 822 ........................................................................ [EA.124.60] Jiang v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 277 ............................. [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] Jo Maree Payne v Helen Mary Rowe [2012] NSWSC 685 ........................... [EA.131.480] John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco (1988) 165 CLR 346 ....................... [EA.130.120] John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Abernethy [1999] NSWSC 826 .......... [EA.125.120], [EA.125.210] Johnson v Page [2007] FamCA 1235 ............................................................... [EA.140.60] Johnson v Western Australia (2008) 186 A Crim R 531; [2008] WASCA 164 ............................................................................................................... [EA.141.150] Johnston v Brightstars Holding Company Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 150 ......... [EA.46.60], [EA.81.210] Johnston v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 133 .................................................. [EA.20.180] Johnston v Western Australia [2012] WASCA 148 .......................................... [EA.46.150] Johnstone v New South Wales (2010) 202 A Crim R 422; [2010] NSWCA 70 ........................................................................................... [EA.Intro.340], [EA.56.60] Johnstone v The Queen [2011] VSCA 60 ....................................................... [EA.165.480] Jones v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 136 ................................................................................................................. [EA.55.180] Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; 32 ALJR 395; 76 WN (NSW) 278; [1959] ALR 367 ............................................. [EA.Intro.120], [EA.46.60], [EA.55.180] Jones v Sutherland SC [1979] 2 NSWLR 206 ................................................. [EA.81.180] Jones v The Queen (1989) 41 A Crim R 1 ..................................................... [EA.114.330] Jones v The Queen (1997) 71 ALJR 538; [1997] HCA 12 ........................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.540] Jones v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 443 ......................................................... [EA.89.90] Jones v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 280 ..................................................... [EA.101.240] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xli

Table of Cases

Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150 ....................................................................... [EA.144.60] Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd v Taouk [2012] NSWCA 342 ................. [EA.55.600], [EA.56.120], [EA.56.210], [EA.58.60] Jovanovic v The Queen (2007) 172 A Crim R 518; [2007] TASSC 56 .......... [EA.141.90] Jung v Son [1998] NSWSC 698 .......................................................................... [EA.84.60] Jurj v The Queen [2016] VSCA 57 .............................................................. [EA.165B.270]

K K v The Queen (1997) 22 Fam LR 592 ............................................................ [EA.140.60] K v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 157 ................................ [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150] K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court [2009] HCA 4 ................... [EA.130.300] KB & TC [2005] FamCA 458 ........................................................................... [EA.144.60] KC v Shiley Inc (unreported, FCA, Tamberlin J, 11 July 1997) ................... [EA.121.150], [EA.131.450], [EA.131.480], [EA.131.510] KC v The Queen [2011] VSCA 82; 207 A Crim R 241 ................................... [EA.46.120] KH v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 294 ....................................... [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150] KJM v The Queen (No 2) [2011] VSCA 268 ........................... [EA.97.480], [EA.101.450] KJR v The Queen (2007) 173 A Crim R 226; [2007] NSWCCA 165 .......... [EA.101.360] KJS v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 27 .......................................................... [EA.101.150] KMB v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 212 .............................................. [EA.141.120] KNP v The Queen (2006) 67 NSWLR 227; [2006] NSWCCA 213 ............. [EA.108.120], [EA.165.210] KRI v The Queen (2011) 207 A Crim R 552; [2011] VSCA 127 .................... [EA.97.120] KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; 118 A Crim R 262; [2001] HCA 11 ...................................... [EA.Intro.340], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.165.480] KS v Veitch (No 2) [2012] NSWCCA 266 ......................... [NSW.CP.260], [NSW.CP.300], [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.440], [NSW.CP.480], [NSW.CP.520], [NSW.CP.580], [NSW.CP.600] KSC v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 179 ....................................................... [EA.101.150] KTR v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 271 ............................ [EA.101A.120], [EA.101.150] Kaifoto v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 186 .......................... [EA.101.150], [EA.165.480] Kalbasi v Western Australia (2013) 235 A Crim R 541; [2013] WASCA 241 ............................................................................................................... [EA.165.480] Kamleh v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 541; [2005] HCA 2 ............................ [EA.59.180] Kanaan v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 109 ...... [EA.38.60], [EA.116.90], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.360], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Kang v Kwan [2001] NSWSC 697 ................................................................. [EA.119.180] Kang v Kwan [2001] NSWSC 698 .................. [EA.118.240], [EA.118.360], [EA.122.90], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120], [EA.125.180], [EA.125.210] Kang v Kwan [2002] NSWSC 1187 ................................................................. [EA.69.240] Kang-Kem v Paine [2003] NSWSC 916 ................................ [EA.128.480], [EA.128.540] Kanthal Australia Pty Ltd v Ministry for Industry, Technology & Commerce (1987) 14 FCR 90 .................................................................... [EA.130.300] Kantor v Vosahlo [2004] VSCA 235 ................................................................. [EA.140.60] Kaperonis v Government Insurance Offıce (NSW) (unreported, NSW SC, Badgery-Parker J, 2 February 1996) .............................................................. [EA.67.90] Karam v The Queen [2015] VSCA 50 ................ [EA.62.60], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.210], [EA.Intro.120] Karmas v New South Wales Land & Housing Corp [1999] NSWSC 157 .... [EA.129.180] Keane v Caravan City Cowra Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 942 ............................ [EA.69.240] Keller v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 204 ......... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.240], [EA.79.300], [EA.79.480], [EA.80.90], [EA.165.450] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xlii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Kelly v The Queen (2002) 129 A Crim R 363; [2002] WASCA 134 ........... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216; 78 ALJR 538; [2004] HCA 12 ......................... [EA.Intro.180], [EA.139.60], [EA.165.420], [EA.84.150], [EA.85.150] Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 142 FCR 185; [2004] FCAFC 337 .... [EA.46.60], [EA.75.90], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.540], [EA.118.570] Kent v Wotton & Byrne Pty Ltd [2006] TASSC 8 ............................................ [EA.144.60] Khamis v The Queen (2010) 203 A Crim R 121; [2010] NSWCCA 179 ........ [EA.46.60], [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150], [EA.46.180] Kheir v The Queen [2014] VSCA 200 ................. [EA.78.60], [EA.79.150], [EA.137.120] Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460; 47 ALJR 369; [1973] HCA 30 .... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.540], [EA.165.570] Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc v Goulimis (2008) 253 ALR 76; [2008] FCA 1415 .................................................................... [EA.21.210], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30] King v Collins [2007] NSWCA 122 .................................................................. [EA.55.180] King v The Queen (1986) 15 FCR 427 ............................................................... [EA.89.90] King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423 ........................................................ [EA.101.150] Kingham v Sutton (No 3) [2001] FCA 1117 ....................................................... [EA.48.60] Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 221 ................................... [EA.136.60] Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 4) [2012] FCA 323 ................................... [EA.136.60] Kirch Communications Pty Ltd v Gee Engineering Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 485 .................................................................................................. [EA.79.300] Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; 190 IR 437; [2010] HCA 1 ..................................................................... [EA.17.60], [EA.42.60] Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW [2009] HCATrans 93 ............ [EA.17.60] Kirk Pty Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1998] NSWSC 1 .................................... [EA.87.90] Klein v Bryant [1998] ACTSC 89 ..................................................................... [EA.138.60] Klewer v Walton [2003] NSWCA 308 ..................... [EA.38.60], [EA.43.90], [EA.136.60] Knight v Maclean [2002] NSWCA 314 ........................................ [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] Knight v The Queen (1992) 66 ALJR 860 ...................................................... [EA.141.120] Knowles v The Queen [2015] VSCA 141 ................................. [EA.37.270], [EA.165.450] Kong v Kang [2014] VSC 28 ......................... [EA.131.150], [EA.131.270], [EA.131.390] Konia v Morley [1976] 1 NZLR 455 .............................................................. [EA.118.390] Konigsberg (a bankrupt), Re; Ex parte The Trustee v Konigsberg [1989] 3 All ER 289 .................................................................................................. [EA.122.360] Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 100 FCR 90 .............................................................................. [EA.135.210] Korean Air Lines v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (No 3) (2008) 247 ALR 781; [2008] FCA 701 ....................... [EA.131.150], [EA.131.270], [EA.131.480] Korgbara v The Queen (2007) 170 A Crim R 568; [2007] NSWCCA 84 ..... [EA.137.60], [EA.165.450] Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Ltd v New South Wales [2002] NSWSC 329 .......... [EA.131.390], [EA.131.480] Kosian v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 40 VR 335; 237 A Crim R 156; [2013] VSCA 357 ............................................................................. [EA.79.480] Kotvas v The Queen [2010] VSCA 309 .......................................................... [EA.141.120] Koushappis v Western Australia (2007) 168 A Crim R 51; [2007] WASCA 26 ................................................................................................................. [EA.141.150] Kozul v The Queen (1981) 157 CLR 221 ......................................................... [EA.53.180] Kraus v Menzie [2012] FCAFC 144 ................................................................... [EA.46.60] Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361; [2011] HCA 11 ............................. [EA.46.60], [EA.55.180], [EA.81.60], [EA.140.120] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xliii

Table of Cases

Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363; [2004] HCA 34 ....................... [EA.140.60] Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael 526 US 137 (1999) ........................................... [EA.79.120] Kutschera v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 150 ....................... [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360] Kwan v Kang [2003] NSWCA 336 .................... [EA.56.120], [EA.56.210], [EA.125.180] Kyluk Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Offıce of Environment and Heritage [2013] NSWCCA 114 ...................................... [EA.79.240], [EA.79.300], [EA.79.330]

L L v Tasmania (2006) 15 Tas R 381; [2006] TASSC 59 ............ [EA.97.480], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.450] LAB v The Queen (2006) 162 A Crim R 517; [2006] NSWCCA 202 .......... [EA.165.210] LAM & RAM [2005] FamCA 868 ....................................................................... [EA.67.90] L’Estrange v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 89 ........................ [EA.41.300], [EA.101.150] LGM v CAM (2006) 200 FLR 360; [2006] FamCA 435 ................................. [EA.20.180] LGM v CAM [2008] FamCA 185 ...................................................................... [EA.26.150] LGM v CAM [2011] FamCAFC 195 ............... [EA.128.420], [EA.128.780], [EA.132.60], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.150], [EA.138.600] LJW v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 114 ....................................................... [EA.101.150] LMD v The Queen [2012] VSCA 164 .............................................................. [EA.66.180] LMI A/asia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 31; [2001] NSWSC 688 .................... [EA.21.210], [EA.26.270], [EA.29.90], [EA.29.120], [EA.29.150], [EA.55.540] LS v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2011] NSWSC 1016; 221 A Crim R 347 ..................................................................................................... [EA.19.30] La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 4 ............. [EA.76.90], [EA.135.150], [EA.135.180], [EA.135.300] Lactalis Jindi Pty Ltd v Jindi Cheese Pty Ltd [2013] VSC 475 .................... [EA.122.270] Ladd v The Queen (2009) 157 NTR 29; [2009] NTCCA 6 ............................. [EA.141.90] Lakatoi v Walker [1999] NSWSC 1088 ............................................................ [EA.26.150] Lakatoi v Walker [1999] NSWSC 156 ............................................................ [EA.122.300] Lambert Leasing Inc v QBE Insurance Australia Ltd [2012] NSWSC 953 ....................... [EA.192A.60] Lancaster v The Queen [2014] VSCA 333 ........... [EA.69.90], [EA.69.120], [EA.69.180], [EA.69.210], [EA.76.120], [EA.79.120] Landini v New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 259 ............................................. [EA.87.120] Lane v Jurd (No 2) (1995) 40 NSWLR 708 ....................................................... [EA.11.60] Lane v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 317 .................................... [EA.38.60], [EA.38.210] Lane Cove Council v Geebung Polo Club Pty Ltd (2002) 41 ACSR 15 ........ [EA.160.60] Langbein v The Queen (2008) 181 A Crim R 378; [2008] NSWCCA 38 ..... [EA.66.180], [EA.108.150], [EA.165.480] Lardil Peoples v State of Queensland [2000] FCA 1548 ........... [EA.60.60], [EA.79.270], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.180] Larrakia People, The v Northern Territory [2003] FCA 1175 ........................ [EA.136.60] Latorre v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 319; [2012] VSCA 280 ............. [EA.43.210], [EA.137.60], [EA.165.450] Lau v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 30; 58 A Crim R 390 .................................. [EA.13.210] Lawcover Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (unreported, NSW SC, Hodgson J, 28 November 1997) .......... [EA.125.210], [EA.131.60], [EA.131.570] Lazaris v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 163 ................................................. [EA.Intro.350] Lazenby v Zammit [1987] Tas R 54 ................................................................ [EA.119.120] Le v McElwee [2008] ACTSC 55 ...................................................................... [EA.143.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xliv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Leahy v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1980) 11 ATR 145 .................. [EA.119.120] Lederberger v Mediterranean Olives Financial Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 262 .... [EA.46.150] Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 305 ......................................................................................... [EA.58.60] Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 303 ...... [EA.69.180] Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; 87 ALJR 1082; [2013] HCA 39 ...................................................................... [EA.128.540] Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 ................... [EA.59.90], [EA.59.120], [EA.60.60], [EA.60.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.Intro.180] Lee v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 259 ................ [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.38.330] Lee v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 68 ........................................................... [EA.165.480] Lee v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 656; [2014] HCA 20 ............................... [EA.128.540] Lefroy v The Queen [2004] WASCA 266 ....................................................... [EA.165.480] Leghaei v Director-General of Security (2007) 241 ALR 741; [2007] FCAFC 37 ................................................................................................... [EA.130.210] Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 505 ............................................................................................................. [EA.Intro.300] Leonard v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 374; [2006] NSWCCA 267 .... [EA.101.150] Lester v The Queen [2011] HCATrans 126 ......................................................... [EA.89.90] Leung v The Queen (2003) 144 A Crim R 441; [2003] NSWCCA 51 ........ [EA.108.120], [EA.108.150], [EA.108.180] Leveraged Equities Ltd v Goodridge [2011] FCAFC 3 ................................... [EA.160.60] Lewincamp v ACP Magazines Ltd [2008] ACTSC 69 ..................................... [EA.69.240] Lewis v Lamb [2011] NSWSC 873 ................................................................. [EA.131.330] Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1245 ................................................ [EA.131.330] Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] NSWSC 1083 ................. [EA.69.60], [EA.69.240] Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] NSWSC 337 .................. [EA.48.90], [EA.48.270], [EA.48.360] Lexcray Pty Ltd v Northern Territory (2015) 292 FLR 447; [2015] NTSC 11 ................ [EA.131.150], [EA.131.390], [EA.131.480], [EA.131.510], [EA.131.540] Leybourne v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2010] NSWCA 78 ........................ [EA.135.150] Li v The Queen (2003) 139 A Crim R 281; [2003] NSWCCA 290 ............... [EA.79.150], [EA.79.300], [EA.114.240], [EA.114.330], [EA.165.450] Li, Wing Cheong v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 40 ................. [EA.59.180], [EA.110.90] Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 .................................................. [EA.141.150] Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Ltd (2005) 218 ALR 283 ......... [EA.122.330] Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30 .................................................................. [EA.41.300] Liesfield v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 348 ....................................... [EA.118.390] Lillicrap v Nalder & Son (a firm) [1993] 1 All ER 724; [1993] 1 WLR 94 ...................... [EA.122.150] Lin v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 9 ...................... [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30], [EA.69.180], [EA.167.30], [EA.167.60], [EA.169.60], [EA.169.90] Lin v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 13 ................................................................. [EA.169.60] Lindsay-Owen v Lake [2000] NSWSC 1046 .......... [EA.28.120], [EA.32.330], [EA.34.60] Linfox Transport (Aust) Pty Ltd v Arthur Yates & Co Ltd [2003] NSWSC 281 ................................................................................................................. [EA.69.600] Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 85 ALJR 1130; [2011] HCA 36 ........ [EA.55.60], [EA.56.90], [EA.62.60], [EA.69.180], [EA.69.210], [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.78.60] Liu v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1352 ................. [EA.131.120], [EA.131.150], [EA.131.360], [EA.131.540] Liu v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 900 ................ [EA.131A.180], [EA.131.360], [EA.131.540] Liu v The Age Company [2010] NSWSC 1176 .............................. [EA.75.60], [EA.75.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xlv

Table of Cases

Llewellyn v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 66 ....... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150], [EA.165.480] Lo Presti v The Queen (1994) 68 ALJR 477 .................................................... [EA.27.150] Lockwood v Police (2010) 107 SASR 237; [2010] SASC 120 ....................... [EA.27.120] Longhurst v Hunt [2004] NSWCA 91 ............................................................ [EA.135.150] Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 ......................... [EA.165B.270], [EA.164.90], [EA.165.330], [EA.165.360], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Lopes v Taylor (1970) 44 ALJR 412 ................................................................. [EA.81.240] Lord Buddha Pty Ltd v Harpur [2013] VSCA 101 .......................................... [EA.46.150] Louizos v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 71 ...................................................... [EA.55.180] Love v Roads Corporation [2014] VSCA 30 ...................................................... [EA.76.90] Lowe v Lang [2000] NSWSC 309 ...................................................................... [EA.34.60] Lowe v The Queen [2015] VSCA 327 ........................................ [EA.20.180], [EA.20.420] Lucire v Health Care Complaints Commission [2011] NSWCA 99 ................ [EA.55.180] Luna v The Queen [2016] VSCA 10 ........................................ [EA.65.270], [EA.137.120] Lustre Hosiery Ltd v York (1935) 54 CLR 134; [1935] HCA 71 .................... [EA.81.120] Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352 .................................................................. [EA.140.60] Lym International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303 ...................... [EA.55.180], [EA.55.510], [EA.56.60], [EA.83.60], [EA.Intro.350] Lyndon v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 112 ................................................... [EA.101.360] Lysle v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 20 .......................................................... [EA.46.150]

M M v Ryan (1997) 143 DLR (4th) 1 ................................................................ [NSW.CP.480] MA v The Queen [2011] VSCA 13 .................................................................. [EA.114.240] MA v The Queen (2013) 226 A Crim R 575; [2013] VSCA 20 ..................... [EA.55.150], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.450], [EA.103.60], [EA.137.60] MAH v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 226 ......... [EA.38.120], [EA.38.150], [EA.141.120] MAJW v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 255 .................................................... [EA.104.120] MB v Protective Commissioner [2000] NSWSC 882 ..................................... [EA.131.510] MGICA (1992) Ltd v Kenny & Good Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 61 FCR 236 .... [EA.122.390] MIH v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 199 ......................................................... [EA.90.360] MK v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 274 .................................... [EA.13.210], [EA.13.300] MM v The Queen (2012) 232 A Crim R 303; [2012] ACTCA 44 ................ [EA.101.150] MM Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 243 ................................................................................................ [EA.189.120] MR v The Queen [2011] VSCA 39 ................................................................... [EA.97.120] MSPR Pty Ltd v Advanced Braking Technology Ltd [2013] NSWCA 416 ..... [EA.55.180] MWJ v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 329; [2005] HCA 74 ......... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150] Mabo v Queensland [1992] 1 Qd R 78 .............................................................. [EA.74.60] Mac v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 24 ......................................................... [EA.101.150] MacLennan v Hastings Transport Pty Ltd [1969] VR 376 .............................. [EA.87.180] MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512 ................................................ [EA.84.90] Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar [2006] NSWCA 160 ......................................................................... [EA.122.210] Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348 ......................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] Macquarie Bank Ltd v Fociri Pty Ltd (1992) 27 NSWLR 203 ................... [EA.Intro.300] Macquarie Bank Ltd v McCann & Associates Pty Ltd (unreported, FCA, Moore J, 2 December 1998) ....................................................................... [EA.122.330] Madafferi v The Age Company Ltd [2015] VSC 687 ...... [EA.126K.210], [EA.126K.220], [EA.126K.270], [EA.126K.330], [EA.126K.360], [EA.126K.390] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xlvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 ...................................................... [EA.36.30] Magill v The Queen (2013) 235 A Crim R 53; [2013] VSCA 259 ............... [EA.165.480] Mahlo v Westpac Banking Corp (unreported, NSW SC, Santow J, 21 November 1996) ............................................................................................. [EA.55.60] Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; 180 A Crim R 142; 82 ALJR 372; [2008] HCA 1 ........................ [EA.55.180], [EA.81.240], [EA.165.480] Maiden Civil Pty Ltd, In the Matter of [2012] NSWSC 1618 ......................... [EA.57.120] Makarov v The Queen (No 3) [2008] NSWCCA 293 ...................................... [EA.137.60] Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 ...... [EA.Intro.330], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240], [EA.79.300], [EA.80.90] Mallala District Council v Livestock Markets Ltd (2006) 94 SASR 258 ....... [EA.133.60] Maluka v Maluka [2011] FamCAFC 72 ......................................................... [EA.144.120] Mamo v Surace [2014] NSWCA 58 .................................................................. [EA.55.180] Mancorp Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd (1991) 57 SASR 87 ..................... [EA.122.390] Manly Council v Byrne [2004] NSWCA 123 ................................................... [EA.55.180] Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1; 168 ALR 86; [1999] HCA 66 ............... [EA.122.60], [EA.122.120], [EA.122.300] Mannella v The Queen [2010] VSCA 357 ...................................................... [EA.141.120] Manton v Commonwealth (1981) 34 ALR 342 .......................... [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] Markby v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 108; 52 ALJR 626 ........................... [EA.101.180] Markoff v Lautogo (unreported, NSW SC, Santow J, 5 March 1997) .............. [EA.67.90] Marks v Beyfus (1890) 25 QBD 494 .............................................................. [EA.130.150] Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1996) 63 FCR 304 .............................. [EA.55.510] Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 128 ............................ [EA.131.510] Maronis Holdings Ltd v Nippon Credit Australia Ltd (2001) 38 ACSR 404 ................................................................................................................. [EA.79.120] Marra Developments Ltd, Re [1979] 2 NSWLR 193 ....................................... [EA.69.120] Marriage of Atkinson (1997) 136 FLR 347 ............................ [EA.128.330], [EA.128.360] Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1155 ...................... [EA.126B.150], [EA.122.390] Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 259 ........................ [EA.125.210] Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 284 ........................ [EA.130.330] Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 55 .......................... [EA.73.60] Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 670 ........................ [EA.106.150] Marsh v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 154 ........................................................ [EA.98.60] Martin v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] VSCA 377 ......................... [EA.37.270], [EA.138.120] Martin v Police Service Board [1983] 2 VR 357 .................. [EA.126D.30], [EA.125.90], [EA.128.210], [NSW.CP.760] Martin v Tasmania (2008) 190 A Crim R 77; [2008] TASSC 66 ................... [EA.97.240] Martin v The Queen (2010) 202 A Crim R 97; [2010] VSCA 153 ................. [EA.141.90] Martin v The Queen [2013] VSCA 377 ............................ [EA.165A.120], [EA.165A.150] Martin v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 38 ........... [EA.97.300], [EA.98.300], [EA.101.270], [EA.137.60], [EA.138.150] Martinez v Western Australia (2007) 172 A Crim R 389; [2007] WASCA 143 ................................................................................................................. [EA.55.330] Masri v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 243 ..................................................... [EA.101.150] Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v Palm Assets Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 234 ............ [EA.46.60] Mather v Morgan [1971] Tas SR 192 ......................................... [EA.34.150], [EA.34.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xlvii

Table of Cases

Mathis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 118 ............................................................ [EA.110.60] Matter of Idoport Pty Ltd (in liq), The; National Australia Bank Limited v John Sheahan [2012] NSWSC 58 .............................................................. [EA.122.150] Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No 17) [2013] VSC 146 .......................... [EA.45.120] Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No 38) [2014] VSC 102 .......................... [EA.79.240] Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd [2013] VSC 33 ....................................... [EA.122.180] Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (No 10) [2014] VSC 44 ......................... [EA.122.180] Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (No 34) [2014] VSC 40 ............................. [EA.54.60] Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (No 36) [2014] VSC 82 ............................. [EA.41.90] Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (No 7) [2013] VSC 553 ........................ [EA.119.180], [EA.126.60] Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 35) [2014] VSC 59 .............. [EA.57.120], [EA.58.60], [EA.69.540], [EA.69.570], [EA.135.150] Mazzitelli v The Queen (2002) 135 A Crim R 132 ........................................ [EA.141.120] McCartney v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 274; [2012] VSCA 268 ..... [EA.114.240], [EA.137.210], [EA.190.120] McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501 ...................................................... [EA.90.60] McDonald v Girkaid Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 297 ........................................ [EA.140.120] McDonald v Livestock Transport (Sydney) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 166 ....... [EA.46.150] McDonald v The Queen [2014] VSCA 80 ................................ [EA.101.150], [EA.137.60] McFadden v Snow (1951) 69 WN (NSW) 8 .................................................. [EA.131.480] McGavin v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 171 ................................................ [EA.165.360] McGregor & McGregor [2012] FamCAFC 69 .... [EA.79.60], [EA.144.60], [EA.144.120] McIntosh v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 184 ............................................... [EA.101.240] McKey v The Queen (2012) 219 A Crim R 227; [2012] NSWCCA 1 .......... [EA.165.480] McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468 ................................................ [EA.165.420] McLean v Commonwealth (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 27 June 1996) .............................................................................................................. [EA.108.90] McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 218 ................................................................................................................. [EA.103.90] McNeil v FCT (2003) 202 ALR 35 ..................................................................... [EA.55.90] McNeill v The Queen (2008) 168 FCR 198; [2008] FCAFC 80 ................ [EA.Intro.120], [EA.8.90] Mead v Mead (2007) 81 ALJR 1185; 235 ALR 197; [2007] HCA 25 .......... [EA.118.450] Meade v The Queen [2015] VSCA 171 ............... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150], [EA.79.180] Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151 ............................................. [EA.140.120] Mees v Roads Corp (2003) 128 FCR 418; [2003] FCA 306 ............................. [EA.10.60] Meiko Australia Pacific Pty Ltd v Hinchliffe [2009] NSWSC 354 ................ [EA.128.120] Meko v The Queen (2004) 146 A Crim R 131; [2004] WASCA 159 ................ [EA.81.60] Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; 164 ALR 465 ........................... [EA.43.210], [EA.101.210], [EA.106.90], [EA.110.60] Melrose Cranes and Rigging Pty Ltd v Manitowoc Crane Group Australia Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 904 ......................................................................... [EA.118.60] Meltend Pty Ltd v Restoration Clinics of Australia Pty Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 511; 145 ALR 391 ...................................................................................... [EA.122.210] Melville Homes Pty Ltd v Prime Ceramics Services Pty Ltd [1991] 2 VR 211 ............................................................................................................. [EA.Intro.300] Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422 .............................................................................................. [EA.Dict.Pt.1.180] Mercantile Mutual Insurance (NSW Workers Compensation) Ltd v Murray [2004] NSWCA 151 ............................................................. [EA.122.360], [EA.124.60] Meredith v Innes (1930) 31 SR (NSW) 104 .............................. [EA.39.210], [EA.39.240] Merrey v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 62 ............................................... [EA.46.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xlviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Messiter v Hutchinson (1987) 10 NSWLR 525 .............................................. [EA.131.420] Meteyard v Love (2005) 65 NSWLR 36; 224 ALR 588; 56 ACSR 487; [2005] NSWCA 444 ........................ [EA.Intro.120], [EA.4.150], [EA.8.60], [EA.9.90], [EA.117.90], [EA.118.210] Micar Group Pty Ltd v Insul-Trade LLC [2010] NSWSC 1391 ........ [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.21.210] Microsoft Corp v CX Computer Pty Ltd (2002) 116 FCR 372; 187 ALR 362; [2002] FCA 3 ........................................................................................ [EA.187.20] Mid-City Skin Cancer & Laser Centre Pty Ltd v Zahedi-Anarak [2006] NSWSC 615 .................................................................................................... [EA.62.90] Middendorp v The Queen (2012) 218 A Crim R 286; [2012] VSCA 47 ........ [EA.97.120] Middleton v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 179 ................................................... [EA.81.240] Middleton v The Queen (2000) 114 A Crim R 141; [2000] WASCA 200 ...... [EA.41.300] Middleton v The Queen (2000) 114 A Crim R 258; [2000] WASCA 213 ..... [EA.79.480], [EA.165.450] Milano Investments Pty Ltd v Group Developers Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 13 May 1997) ............................................................... [EA.26.120] Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 ....................... [EA.74.60], [EA.79.240] Milkins v The Queen [2011] VSCA 93 ............................................................. [EA.141.90] Miller v Ruscio [2003] NSWSC 372 .............................................................. [EA.138.150] Miller v The Queen [2011] VSCA 143 ............................................................... [EA.66.60] Miller v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 206 ....... [EA.55.270], [EA.57.120], [EA.114.330], [EA.137.60] Mills v Wojcech [2011] NSWSC 86 ................................................................ [EA.122.240] Minassian v Minassian [2010] NSWSC 708 ....... [EA.48.270], [EA.51.60], [EA.140.120] Mindshare Communications Ltd v Orleans Investment Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 976 .......................................................................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd (No 6) [2015] FCA 825 ..................... [EA.56.60] Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v Tyco Electronics Pty Ltd [2002] FCAFC 315 ..................................................................................................... [EA.80.90] Minniti v The Queen (2006) 159 A Crim R 394; [2006] NSWCCA 30 ........ [EA.141.120] Mitsubishi Electric Australia Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (Vic) (2002) 4 VR 332; [2002] VSCA 59 ............................................... [EA.118.390], [EA.119.120] Ml Ubase Holdings Co Ltd v Trigem Computer Inc (2007) 69 NSWLR 577; [2007] NSWSC 859 ............................................................................. [EA.126.60] Mokbel v Attorney-General (Cth) (2007) 162 FCR 278; 244 ALR 517; [2007] FCA 1536 .......................................................................................... [EA.143.60] Mokbel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 118 ........................................................... [EA.176.30] Monte v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2015] NSWSC 318 ......... [EA.138.150] Montgomery v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 73 .................... [EA.103.120], [EA.103.150] Moore v Moore [2014] FamCAFC 113 ............................................................. [EA.55.180] Moran v Amoret Installations Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 106 .............................. [EA.60.60] Moran v Moran (No 3) [2000] NSWSC 151 ......................... [EA.131.150], [EA.131.480] Moran v Moran (No 9) (2000) Aust Torts Reports 81–558; [2000] NSWSC 219 ................................................................................................ [EA.122.390] Morey v Transurban City Link Ltd [1997] ATPR 43,923 .................................. [EA.36.30] Morgan v The Queen (2011) 215 A Crim R 33; [2011] NSWCCA 257 ........ [EA.79.180], [EA.79.300] Morgan v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 25 ...................................................... [EA.79.150] Morley v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331 ................................................... [EA.55.180], [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] Morony v Reschke [2014] NSWSC 359 ......................................................... [EA.131A.90] Morris, Re; Ex parte Donnelly (1997) 77 FCR 303 ...................................... [EA.135.210] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xlix

Table of Cases

Mortada v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 36 .................................................. [EA.101.360] Moti v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 456 ............................................................. [EA.11.90] Mouroufas v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 58 ................................................. [EA.116.90] Mulcahy v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 3 .......................................................... [EA.136.60] Muldoon v The Queen (2008) 192 A Crim R 105; [2008] NSWCCA 315 .... [EA.79.240], [EA.137.150] Mule v The Queen [2002] WASCA 101 ......................................................... [EA.165.480] Mule v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1573; [2005] HCA 49 ........................... [EA.81.240], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] Mulkearns v Chandos Developments Pty Ltd (No 4) [2005] NSWSC 511 .... [EA.131.480] Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369 .......................................... [EA.10.60], [EA.81.60] Mundine v Brown (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 515 ............................ [EA.69.90], [EA.69.120] Munro v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 11 ............ [EA.65.150], [EA.65.210], [EA.135.150], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.141.120], [EA.165.240] Murdesk Investments Pty Ltd v Secretary to Department of Business and Innovation [2011] VSC 436 ............................................... [EA.130.210], [EA.130.300] Murdoch v Taylor [1965] AC 574 ................................................................... [EA.104.240] Murdoch v The Queen (2007) 167 A Crim R 329; [2007] NTCCA 1 ........... [EA.114.240] Murdoch v The Queen [2013] VSCA 272 ...... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.360] Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd v Chiron Corp (1995) 62 FCR 424 ...... [EA.77.60], [EA.136.60] Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94 ............................... [EA.80.150], [EA.106.240] Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193; 131 A Crim R 215 ................... [EA.141.150] Murrell v The Queen [2014] VSCA 334 ......................................................... [EA.137.120]

N NA & J Investments Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 120 .............................. [EA.192A.60] NAM v The Queen [2010] VSCA 95 ................................................................ [EA.98.120] NAR v PPC1 [2013] NSWCCA 25 ........... [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.440], [NSW.CP.600], [NSW.CP.720] NJB v The Queen [2010] NTCCA 5 ............................................................ [EA.165A.210] NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1036 ...................... [EA.167.30] NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2010] NSWSC 921 .... [EA.79.210], [EA.79.330] NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2011] NSWSC 106 ...... [EA.53.60] NM Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2011] NSWSC 203 .... [EA.38.240] NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 7) (1999) 161 ALR 576 ........... [EA.79.180] NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No 8) (1999) 161 ALR 581 .......... [EA.26.150], [EA.26.180] NOM v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] VSCA 198 ............................ [EA.140.60] NRMA v John Fairfax [2002] NSWSC 563 ........................ [EA.126A.30], [EA.126B.360] NRMA Ltd v John Kerin Morgan t/as Allen Allen & Hemsley (unreported, NSW SC, Hunter J, 23 August 1996) .................................. [EA.122.270], [EA.126.60] NRMA Ltd v Morgan (unreported, NSW SC, Giles CJ Comm D, 1 September 1998) ........................................................................................... [EA.79.240] NRMA Ltd v Morgan (No 2) [1999] NSWSC 694 ......................................... [EA.122.270] NSI Group Pty Ltd v Mokas [2006] NSWSC 1077 ........................................ [EA.131.450] NSW Bar Assn v Somosi [2001] NSWCA 285 ............................................... [EA.135.150] NSW Crime Commission v Vu [2009] NSWCA 349 .......................................... [EA.75.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] l

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power & Water Authority [1999] FCA 1549 ............................................................................................................... [EA.69.120] Nader v Sutherland Shire Council [2008] NSWCA 265 ................................ [EA.131.480] Nagle v Lavender [2002] NSWSC 611 ............................................................. [EA.140.60] Nash v Glennies Creek Coal Management Pty Ltd (No 6) [2014] NSWIRComm 36 ....................................... [EA.122.150], [EA.122.270], [EA.130.240] National Australia Bank v Caporale [2012] NSWSC 509 ............................ [EA.108C.90] National Australia Bank Ltd v C & O Voukidis Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 258 ................................................................................................ [EA.122.150] National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309; [1999] NSWSC 539 ................................... [EA.48.60], [EA.57.120], [EA.58.60], [EA.142.60] National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (unreported, NSW SC, 6 April 1998) ....................... [EA.128.330] National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Ltd v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 5) [2007] FCA 569 ...................................... [EA.41.240] National Crime Authority v S (1991) 29 FCR 203 ......................................... [EA.118.210] National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Ltd (1988) 17 NSWLR 223 .................. [EA.157.60] National Mutual Life Assn of Australasia v Grosvenor Hill (Qld) (2001) 183 ALR 700 .................................................................................................. [EA.91.60] National Telecoms Group Ltd v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] NSWSC 455 ........................................................................................ [EA.80.90] Neal v The Queen [2005] TASSC 70 ........................................... [EA.55.60], [EA.55.330] Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170; 110 ALR 449 ................................................................................................. [EA.140.60] Neill-Fraser v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 2 ................................................... [EA.141.120] Nestle Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1986) 11 FCR 453 ............................................................................................................... [EA.130.210] Neubecker v The Queen (2012) 220 A Crim R 585; [2012] VSCA 58 ........ [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] New Cap Reinsurance Corp Ltd (in liq) v Renaissance Reinsurance Ltd [2007] NSWSC 258 ................................... [EA.119.120], [EA.119.180], [EA.122.180] New South Wales v Betfair Pty Ltd (2009) 180 FCR 543; [2009] FCAFC 160 .............................................................. [EA.118.330], [EA.118.480], [EA.122.120] New South Wales v Bitsikas [2010] NSWSC 773 ............................................ [EA.79.330] New South Wales v Fuller-Lyons [2014] NSWCA 424 .................................... [EA.140.60] New South Wales v Hathaway [2010] NSWCA 184 ........................................ [EA.140.60] New South Wales v Hunt (2014) 86 NSWLR 226; [2014] NSWCA 47 ............................. [EA.46.60],[EA.140.120] New South Wales v Jackson [2007] NSWCA 279 ................. [EA.117.120], [EA.119.120], [EA.133.60] New South Wales v Kuru [2007] NSWCA 141 .................................................. [EA.34.60] New South Wales v Mannall [2005] NSWCA 367 ..................... [EA.69.210], [EA.69.240] New South Wales v Public Transport Ticketing Corporation [2011] NSWCA 60 .... [EA.131A.120], [EA.7.30], [EA.130.60], [EA.130.180], [EA.130.210], [EA.130.240] New South Wales v Ryan [1998] FCA 1057 ................................................... [EA.130.210] New South Wales Commissioner of Police v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 366 ................................................................................... [EA.130.420] New South Wales Police Force v Winter [2011] NSWCA 330 .......................... [EA.46.60] Newcastle Wallsend Coal Co Pty Ltd v Court of Coal Mines Regulation (1997) 42 NSWLR 351 ............................ [EA.118.210], [EA.122.210], [EA.Intro.120] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

li

Table of Cases

Nezovic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2003) 203 ALR 33 .......................................................................... [EA.155.30] Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246 ...................................... [EA.140.60] Nguyen v Nguyen & Vu Publishing Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1166 ................. [EA.79.240] Nguyen v The Queen (2007) 173 A Crim R 557; [2007] NSWCCA 249 ...... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.480], [EA.165.450] Niaros v The Queen [2013] VSCA 249 .......................................................... [EA.108.240] Nicholls v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2012] NSWCA 383 ................... [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240] Nicholls v The Queen (2005) 219 CLR 196; 79 ALJR 468; [2005] HCA 1 ...................... [EA.101A.120], [EA.59.180], [EA.106.90], [EA.106.120], [EA.106.150], [EA.138.300], [EA.165.420] Nicopoulos v Commissioner for Corrective Services (2004) 148 A Crim R 74; [2004] NSWSC 562 ............................................................................... [EA.130.90] Nikolaidis v Legal Services Commissioner [2007] NSWCA 130 .................... [EA.69.240] Nikolaidis v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 323 .............................................. [EA.108.150] Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Ltd (2005) 65 IPR 442 ............................................................................................................... [EA.122.480] Ninyette v Western Australia [2012] WASCA 184 ........................................... [EA.97.120] Niven v The Queen (1968) 118 CLR 513 ................................... [EA.43.210], [EA.106.90] Nobrega v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church (Sydney) (No 2) [1999] NSWCA 133 ............................................................................................... [EA.131.510] Nodnara Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 140 FLR 336; 38 ATR 527 ................................................ [EA.55.60], [EA.57.90], [EA.131.270] Nokia Corp v Truong [2005] FCA 1141 ........................................................... [EA.79.150] Nominal Defendant v Clements (1960) 104 CLR 476 ................................... [EA.108.150] Nominal Defendant v Ismail [2014] NSWCA 432 ........................................... [EA.79.120] Nominal Defendant v Saleh [2011] NSWCA 16 ....................... [EA.46.150], [EA.55.270], [EA.79.240] Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 .............. [EA.97.480], [EA.101.450], [EA.138.720] Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] NSWCA 145 ....................................................................................... [EA.144.60], [EA.Intro.120] Norris v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 235 .................................................... [EA.165.480] North Sydney Leagues’ Club Ltd v Synergy Protection Agency Pty Ltd (2012) 83 NSWLR 710; [2012] NSWCA 168 ............................................ [EA.146.60] Northern Inland Council for the Environment Inc v Minister for the Environment [2013] FCA 1419 .................................................................... [EA.136.60] Northern Territory v GPAO (1999) 196 CLR 553; 161 ALR 318 ................... [EA.118.90] Norton v Long [1968] VR 221 ........................................................................ [EA.106.270] Norton v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 115 ............................................. [EA.20.180] Notaras v Hugh [2003] NSWSC 167 ................................................................ [EA.79.240] Nu-Tec v ABC [2010] NSWSC 711 ..................................................................... [EA.55.90] Nuclear Utility Technology & Environmental Corp Inc v ABC [2010] NSWSC 711 ........................................................................ [EA.135.180], [EA.135.210] Nye v New South Wales [2002] NSWSC 1268 ................................................. [EA.69.240] Nye v New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 610 ..................................................... [EA.46.60]

O O’Brien v Gillespie (1997) 41 NSWLR 549 .................................................... [EA.79.150] O’Donnel v Dakin [1966] Tas SR 87 ......................................... [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] O’Keefe v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 121 .......................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.450] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566 ................................. [EA.55.360], [EA.101.150] O’Meara v Dominican Fathers [2003] ACTCA 24 ................... [EA.55.180], [EA.57.120] OPEL Networks Pty Ltd (in liq), Re [2010] NSWSC 142 ................................. [EA.10.60] O’Reilly v Commissioners of State Bank of Victoria (1982) 153 CLR 1; 44 ALR 27 ................................................................................................... [EA.118.420] Obacelo Pty Ltd v Taveraft Pty Ltd (1986) 10 FCR 518 ................................. [EA.26.120] Obeid v Ipp [2015] NSWSC 1755 .................................................................. [EA.130.300] Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Assn (Europe) OV v Jetopay Pty Ltd (2000) 120 FCR 146; [2000] FCA 1463 ......... [EA.79.240], [EA.79.390], [EA.183.80] Offıcial Trustee v Pastro [1999] FCA 1631 ........................................................ [EA.46.60] Oldfield v The Queen (2006) 163 A Crim R 242; [2006] NSWCCA 219 ..... [EA.46.150], [EA.165.480] Oliver v Lake Side Resort Development Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 501 .......... [EA.131.390] Oliveri v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 38 ............................. [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360] Ollis v Melissari [2005] NSWSC 1016 .......................................................... [EA.128.120] Omot v The Queen [2016] VSCA 24 ................................................................ [EA.110.90] 1165 Stud Road Pty Ltd v Power [2015] VSC 476 .......................................... [EA.69.510] Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Gilsan (International) Ltd [2006] NSWCA 171 .... [EA.176.30] Optus Networks Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 422 ........... [EA.122.150] Orchard v Spooner (1992) 28 NSWLR 114 ....................................................... [EA.33.30] Ordukaya v Hicks [2000] NSWCA 180 .......................................................... [EA.135.150] Osadebay v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 6 ...................................................... [EA.165.210] Osborne Metal Industries v Bullock (No 1) [2011] NSWSC 636 ................... [EA.64.300] Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2008) 82 ALJR 1288; 249 ALR 1; [2008] HCA 37 ...................................................................... [EA.122.120] Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; 159 ALR 170 .... [EA.79.120], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] Osman v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 157 ..................................................... [EA.55.180] Owens v Lofthouse [2007] FCA 1968 ............................................................... [EA.55.510] Owens v Repatriation Commission (1995) 59 FCR 559 .................................. [EA.144.60] O’Brien v Gillespie (1997) 41 NSWLR 549 ................................................ [EA.Intro.120] O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566; [1946] ALR 535 ........................ [EA.Intro.120]

P P v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 81 ....................................................................... [EA.137.60] PA v The Queen [2012] VSCA 294 ................................................................... [EA.137.60] PCR v The Queen (2013) 235 A Crim R 302; [2013] VSCA 224 .................. [EA.97.120] PG v The Queen [2010] VSCA 289 .................................................................. [EA.97.120] PGM v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 426; [2006] NSWCCA 310 .......... [EA.110.90], [EA.137.60] PNJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2010] VSCA 88 ...................... [EA.97.480], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.450] PPC v Williams [2013] NSWCCA 286 ............................... [NSW.CP.440], [NSW.CP.480] PQ v Australian Red Cross [1992] 1 VR 19 .................................................... [EA.79.240] PT v The Queen [2011] VSCA 43 ................................................................ [EA.165B.210] Pace v The Queen [2014] VSCA 317 ..................................... [EA.114.240], [EA.115.120] Pacer v Westpac Banking Corp (unreported, NSW SC, Santow J, 15 April 1996) ................................................................................................................ [EA.91.60] Page v McKensey [2004] NSWCA 437 ............................................................ [EA.140.60] Page v The Queen [2015] VSCA 357 ........................................ [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120] Paino v Paino [2005] NSWSC 1313 ................................................................ [EA.79.210] Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276 .................................................................. [EA.79.210] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

liii

Table of Cases

Palmer v Dolman [2005] NSWCA 361 ............................................................ [EA.140.60] Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; 151 ALR 16 .............. [EA.41.300], [EA.55.60], [EA.106.150], [EA.101A.120], [EA.103.120] Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (in liq) v Selim [2008] FCA 416 ............................ [EA.79.300] Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; 73 ALJR 1274 ............... [EA.Intro.270], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.90], [EA.55.120], [EA.55.240], [EA.59.180], [EA.66A.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101A.180], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.60], [EA.136.150], [EA.137.120], [EA.165.90] Papazoglou v The Queen [2014] VSCA 194 .................................................... [EA.106.60] Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 844; 62 ALR 85; [1985] HCA 58 ....................................................... [EA.55.270], [EA.79.240] Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs (2007) 232 FLR 362; 243 ALR 574; [2007] NSWCA 348 ........................... [EA.138.60], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.240], [EA.138.570], [EA.138.630], [EA.138.660] Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs (2009) 83 ALJR 494; [2009] HCA 7 ........................................................... [EA.138.90], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.240] Parkin v O’Sullivan (2009) 260 ALR 503; [2009] FCA 1096 ..................... [EA.130.210], [EA.130.390] Parkinson v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 133 ................................................ [EA.55.360] Parkview Qld Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] NSWSC 1599 ............................................................................................................. [EA.122.150] Parsons (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2016] VSCA 17 ............. [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90] Partington v The Queen (2009) 197 A Crim R 380; [2009] NSWCCA 232 .... [EA.76.90], [EA.78.60] Pasqualotto v Pasqualotto [2013] VSCA 21 .................................................... [EA.46.150] Pate v The Queen [2015] VSCA 110 ..................................... [EA.165B.270], [EA.66.180] Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29 ................................................................... [EA.137.60] Patents, Commissioner of v Sherman (2008) 172 FCR 394; [2008] FCAFC 182 .............................................................. [EA.8.60], [EA.8.90], [EA.79.270] Paterson v The Queen [2004] WASCA 63 ....................................................... [EA.46.150] Pathways Employment Services v West (2004) 186 FLR 330; [2004] NSWSC 903 ....................... [EA.122.240], [EA.128.150], [EA.128.600], [EA.128.780] Paton v The Queen [2011] VSCA 72 .............................................................. [EA.101.360] Patrick v Capital Finance Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (2004) 211 ALR 272 .......... [EA.122.360] Patrick v The Queen (2014) 42 VR 651; 241 A Crim R 153; [2014] VSCA 89 ................................................................ [EA.55.60], [EA.76.90], [EA.78.60] Patterson v The Queen [2001] NSWCCA 316 ............................................... [EA.165.270] Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Sporte Leisure Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 51 ................. [EA.55.180] Pavicic v Webb [2010] ACTSC 37 .................................................................. [EA.135.150] Pavitt v The Queen (2007) 169 A Crim R 452; [2007] NSWCCA 88 ............. [EA.90.60], [EA.90.270], [EA.108.150] Payce Properties v BBC Hardware [1999] NSWSC 968 ................................ [EA.55.510] Payless Superbarn (NSW) Ltd v O’Gara (1990) 19 NSWLR 551 .................. [EA.46.150] Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191 ............................................................. [EA.55.180] Payne v The Queen [2015] VSCA 291 ........................................................... [EA.165.480] Peabody Resources Ltd v Macquarie Generation (unreported, NSW SC, Einstein J, 23 November 1998) .................................................................... [EA.55.510] Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619 ....................................................... [EA.141.120] Peacock v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 264 .................... [EA.101A.90], [EA.101A.120], [EA.106.120] Peck v WA [2005] WASCA 20 .......................................................................... [EA.116.90] Pedler v Richardson (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 16 October 1997) ....... [EA.140.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] liv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Penney v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1316 ................................................... [EA.141.120] Pennington v WA [2013] WASCA 98 ............................................................. [EA.165.480] Penrith Rugby League Club Ltd v Brown [2004] NSWSC 1182 ..................... [EA.130.60] Penza v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 21 ......................................................... [EA.55.330] Pepsi Seven-Up Bottlers (Aust) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1995) 62 FCR 289; 31 ATR 445; 132 ALR 632 .................................... [EA.Intro.120] Perish v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 89 .................................................... [EA.Intro.350] Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Gillett (2004) 145 A Crim R 220; [2004] NSWSC 278 .................................................................................................... [EA.91.60] Perpetual Nominees Pty Ltd v Masri Apartments Pty Ltd (2004) 183 FLR 142; 49 ACSR 714; 22 ACLC 971 .............................................................. [EA.160.60] Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v George; Estate of Conacher (No 2) (unreported, NSW SC, Einstein J, 28 November 1997) ............................... [EA.77.60] Perpetual Trustees (WA) Ltd v Equuscorp Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 925 .............. [EA.122.90] Perry v Powercor Australia Limited [2011] VSC 308 ................................... [EA.118.390] Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580; 57 ALJR 110; 44 ALR 449; [1982] HCA 75 ....................................................................... [EA.98.60], [EA.101.180] Peterson v The Queen (1979) 41 FLR 205 ...................................................... [EA.20.150] Peterson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 111 ......... [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240], [EA.137.60] Petrolink Pty Ltd, Re [2014] FCA 1024 ......................................................... [EA.131.600] Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95; 55 A Crim R 322; [1991] HCA 34 ..................................................................................................................... [EA.89.90] Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; 69 ALJR 147; 77 A Crim R 149; [1995] HCA 7 ............. [EA.101.60], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.210], [EA.101.450], [EA.137.60] Phillips v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 45 ................................ [EA.104.180], [EA.112.60] Phillips v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 303; 80 ALJR 537; [2006] HCA 4 .... [EA.55.420], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.210] Picker v The Queen [2002] NSWCCA 78 .................................. [EA.41.300], [EA.46.150] Pigot’s Case (1614) 11 Co Rep 26b; 77 ER 1177 ............................................. [EA.51.60] Pihiga Pty Ltd v Roche [2011] FCA 240 ............................... [EA.131.450], [EA.131.540] Pinot Nominees Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 1508 ...... [EA.131.510] Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd v Catchklin Pty Ltd (unreported, FCA, Finn J, 6 May 1998) ................................................................................... [EA.118.210] Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 80 A Crim R 302; 130 ALR 35 ......................... [EA.115.300], [EA.116.120] Pittard v Western Australia [2013] WASCA 126 ........................................... [EA.165.480] Pitts v Adney [1961] NSWR 535 .................................................................... [EA.131.480] Platcher v Joseph [2004] FCAFC 68 ................................................................ [EA.37.240] Pledge v Roads & Traffıc Authority; Ryan v Pledge (2004) 78 ALJR 572; [2004] HCA 13 ............................................................................................... [EA.54.60] Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 ...................................................... [EA.141.120] Police v Dunstall (2015) 243 A Crim R 573; [2015] HCA 26 ...................... [EA.137.240] Police v Kyriacou (2009) 10 SASR 243; 193 A Crim R 490; [2009] SASC 66 ........................................................................................................ [EA.55.180] Police, Commissioner of v Fandakis [2001] NSWSC 586 ............................ [EA.130.390] Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397 ............ [EA.126D.30], [EA.125.90], [EA.128.210], [NSW.CP.760] Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; 64 A Crim R 393; [1992] HCA 69 ................................................................................... [EA.90.60], [EA.138.540] Pollard v The Queen [2011] VSCA 95 ........................................................... [EA.137.120] Pollard v Wilson [2010] NSWCA 68 ................................................................ [EA.79.120] Polley v Johnson [2013] NSWSC 543 ............................................................ [EA.130.390] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lv

Table of Cases

Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558 ........... [EA.59.180], [EA.59.210], [EA.65.210], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.390] Pomeroy v Rural Hotels Pty Ltd (1973) 5 SASR 191 ................. [EA.87.90], [EA.87.180] Poniris v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 100 ................................................. [EA.Intro.350] Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43; 64 CLR 282 .................................................... [EA.56.120] Power v The Queen (2014) 43 VR 261; 242 A Crim R 553; [2014] VSCA 146 ....................... [EA.38.210], [EA.60.90], [EA.60.150], [EA.83.60], [EA.101A.120] Powercor Australia Ltd v Perry [2011] VSCA 239 ................ [EA.55.180], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.540] Prasad v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1991) 101 ALR 109 .................................................................................... [EA.69.270] Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 136 FCR 357; 207 ALR 217; [2004] FCAFC 122 .............. [EA.118.60], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.390] Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir [1975] HCA 27; 132 CLR 362 ............... [EA.46.150] Prentice v Cummins (No 5) (2002) 124 FCR 67; [2002] FCA 1503 ............. [EA.144.90], [EA.144.120] Prentice v Cummins (No 6) (2003) 203 ALR 449; [2003] FCA 1002 ........... [EA.26.150], [EA.40.60], [EA.55.180] Presbyterian Church of Victoria Trusts Corporation v Anstee [2014] VSC 426 ............................................................................................................... [EA.122.150] Price v The Queen [1981] Tas SR 306 ............................................................. [EA.79.150] Priest v New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 1281 ............................................ [EA.118.330] Prodduturi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 5 ..................................................................................................... [EA.140.120] Protective Commissioner v B (unreported, NSW SC, Hodgson J, 23 June 1997) ....................................................................................... [EA.28.120], [EA.59.240] Prothonotary of the Supreme Court (NSW) v Livanes [2012] NSWCA 325 ..... [EA.92.60] Prothonotary of the Supreme Court (NSW) v Sukkar [2007] NSWCA 341 ...... [EA.92.60] Public Transport Ticketing Corp v Integrated Transit Solutions [2010] NSWSC 607 ................................................................................................ [EA.130.240] Puchalski v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 220 ................. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.65.270], [EA.67.60], [EA.141.120] Punch v Council of the NSW Bar Assn [2007] NSWCA 93 ................................ [EA.8.90] Punna-Ophasi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 46 ............................................. [EA.141.150] Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australia [2001] NSWSC 926 .................... [EA.48.180] Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1983) 152 CLR 328 .... [EA.126D.30], [EA.125.90], [EA.128.210], [NSW.CP.760]

Q QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd [2012] NSWSC 377 .............................................................................. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Qantas Airways Ltd v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537; 247 ALR 273; [2008] FCAFC 69 ............................................................................. [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] Qoro v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 220 .................................. [EA.56.60], [EA.114.240] Qualtieri v The Queen (2006) 171 A Crim R 463; [2006] NSWCCA 95 ...... [EA.97.450], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] Quarrell v The Queen [2011] VSCA 125 ......................................................... [EA.98.120] Queen’s Case, The (1820) Br & B 284; 129 ER 976 ........................................ [EA.44.60] Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 371; [1998] FCA 1200 ................... [EA.55.270], [EA.60.60], [EA.76.90], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240], [EA.136.60] Quinlan v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 106; [2006] NSWCCA 284 ....... [EA.81.60], [EA.137.120] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Quintano v BW Rose Pty Ltd (2008) 186 A Crim R 448; [2008] NSWSC 1012 .................................................................................. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.67.90]

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v A2 (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1306 ................................................................. [EA.18.120] v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No 21) [2016] NSWSC 24 ............ [EA.37.270], [EA.42.60] v AB [2001] NSWCCA 496 ..................................................... [EA.97.180], [EA.98.180] v AB [2011] ACTSC 204 ............................................................................... [EA.65.150] v AGJ (unreported, NSW CCA, Hunt, Hulme, Graham, 31 October 1997) ............................................................. [EA.164.90], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.480] v AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702; 98 A Crim R 71 .................. [EA.97.450], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.360] v AJS (2005) 12 VR 563; 159 A Crim R 327; [2005] VSCA 288 .............. [EA.39.120] v AN (2000) 117 A Crim R 176; [2000] NSWCCA 372 ..... [EA.97.180], [EA.101.150] v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475 ...................................................................... [EA.101.360] v Abdallah [2001] NSWCCA 506 ................................................................. [EA.46.150] v Abdul-Razzak [2006] NSWCCA 195 .......................................................... [EA.137.60] v Abdullah [1999] NSWCCA 188 ............................................................... [EA.130.150] v Abebe & Mulugeta (unreported, WA CCA, 26 April 1994) .................... [EA.106.150] v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510; [1999] NSWCCA 189 .... [EA.55.360], [EA.81.60], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.141.120], [EA.Intro.120] v Adam (1999) 47 NSWLR 267; [1999] NSWCCA 197 .......... [EA.38.60], [EA.60.60], [EA.66.180] v Adams [2004] NSWCCA 279 ..................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90], [EA.116.120] v Adler (2000) 52 NSWLR 451; 116 A Crim R 38; [2000] NSWCCA 357 ......................................................................................... [EA.79.180], [EA.114.330] v Afif Abdallah [1999] NSWCCA 380 .......................................................... [EA.60.150] v Ahmadi [1999] NSWCCA 161 ................................................................... [EA.139.30] v Ahmed [2001] NSWCCA 450 ................................................................... [EA.165.480] v Albu (1995) 65 SASR 439; 84 A Crim R 11 ........................................... [EA.138.150] v Alchin (2006) 200 FLR 204; [2006] ACTSC 53 ............................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] v Aldridge (1990) 20 NSWLR 737 ............................................................. [EA.103.120] v Ali [2000] NSWCCA 177 ......................................................................... [EA.108.120] v Ali (2001) 122 A Crim R 498 ..................................................................... [EA.116.90] v Ali [2015] NSWCCA 72 ........................................................................... [EA.101.180] v Ali [2015] QCA 191 .................................................................................... [EA.66.300] v Allen [1989] VR 736 ................................................................................... [EA.46.150] v Allen (unreported, NSW CCA, 1 December 1996) ................................... [EA.137.60] v Ambrosi [2004] NSWCCA 23 .................... [EA.165.360], [EA.165.480], [EA.192.80] v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603; [2002] NSWCCA 386 ..................... [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.270] v Ames [1965] NSWR 1489 .......................................................................... [EA.137.60] v Anderson (2000) 1 VR 1; 111 A Crim R 19 ..................... [EA.79.480], [EA.141.150] v Anderson (2001) 127 A Crim R 116 .................................. [EA.141.90], [EA.141.150] v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 141 .................................................................. [EA.89.90] v Anderson (unreported, Vic FC, 2 April 1992) ......................................... [EA.165.330] v Andrews [1987] 1 AC 281 .......................................................................... [EA.65.150] v Andrews [2003] NSWCCA 7 .................................................................... [EA.101.150] v Andrews [2010] SASCFC 5 ...................................................................... [EA.130.390] v Anunga (1976) 11 ALR 412 ............................................... [EA.90.260], [EA.139.150] v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; 15 A Crim R 88 ............ [EA.26.120], [EA.55.180] v Appleby (1996) 88 A Crim R 456 ............................................................ [EA.165.480] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lvii

Table of Cases

R v Arnott [2009] VSCA 299; 214 A Crim R 500 ....................... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.120] R v Arthurell (unreported, NSW SC, Hunt CJ ............................................... [EA.108A.60] R v Arvidson (2008) 185 A Crim R 428; [2008] NSWCCA 135 ................... [EA.137.60], [EA.137.150], [EA.137.210] R v Asfour (1992) 60 A Crim R 409 ............................................................... [EA.165.420] R v Ashcroft [1965] 1 Qd R 81 ..................................................... [EA.80.90], [EA.80.150] R v Ashley [2014] NTSC 15 .............................................................................. [EA.65.150] R v Ashley [2014] NTSC 26 ..................................... [EA.56.60], [EA.66.60], [EA.66.150] R v Ashton [2003] TASSC 140 .......................................................................... [EA.38.150] R v Asquith (1994) 72 A Crim R 250 ............................................................. [EA.104.120] R v Associated Northern Collieries (1910) 11 CLR 738 ....... [EA.126D.30], [EA.125.90], [EA.128.210], [NSW.CP.760] R v Associated Northern Collieries (1912) 14 CLR 387; [1911] HCA 73 ..... [EA.57.210] R v Atallah [2001] VSCA 194 ........................................................................... [EA.87.210] R v Atroushi [2001] NSWCCA 406 ................................................................ [EA.101.150] R v Attalah [2004] NSWCCA 318 .................................................................. [EA.165.360] R v Attallah [2005] NSWCCA 277 ................. [EA.106.120], [EA.108.90], [EA.108.180], [EA.137.120] R v Ayoub [2004] NSWCCA 209 .................................................. [EA.46.60], [EA.141.90] R v Azzopardi (unreported, NSW CCA, Spigelman CJ, Sully, Hidden JJ, 1 October 1998) ............................................................................................... [EA.110.60] R v B (1993) 66 A Crim R 192 .................................................................... [EA.165A.150] R v B O (No 2) (2012) 15 DCLR (NSW) 317; [2012] NSWDC 195 ............. [EA.18.150] R v BAZ [2005] QCA 420 ....................................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] R v BBR [2010] 1 Qd R 546; 195 A Crim R 330; [2009] QCA 178 .............. [EA.13.210] R v BCQ (2013) 240 A Crim R 153; [2013] QCA 388 ................................. [EA.165.480] R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 .... [EA.55.240], [EA.60.60], [EA.66.60], [EA.108.150], [EA.135.90], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.150], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120] R v BDX [2009] VSCA 28 .............................. [EA.103.120], [EA.106.150], [EA.141.150] R v BFG [2013] SASCFC 24 .......................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v BL [2015] NTSC 85 .................................................................................... [EA.85.210] R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241; [2002] NSWCCA 60 ............................... [EA.165.450] R v Baartman [2000] NSWCCA 298 ..................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] R v Bacash (2001) 124 A Crim R 535; [2001] VSCA 193 ............................. [EA.87.210] R v Baden-Clay [2015] QCA 265 ..................................................................... [EA.55.330] R v Bailey & Smith (1993) 97 Cr App R 365 .................................................. [EA.90.270] R v Bajic [2005] VSCA 158 .............................................................................. [EA.41.300] R v Baker [1999] NSWCCA 129 .................................................................... [EA.165.180] R v Baker [1999] NSWCCA 277 ...................................................................... [EA.41.300] R v Baker [2001] NSWCCA 151 ............................................ [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360] R v Baladjam (No 19) [2008] NSWSC 1441 ............................. [EA.57.210], [EA.87.180] R v Baldwin [2004] NSWCCA 21 .................................................................. [EA.101.360] R v Balogun [2004] NSWCCA 72 .................................................................... [EA.116.90] R v Baltensberger [2004] SASC 392 ...................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] R v Banic [2004] NSWCCA 322 ...................................................................... [EA.46.150] R v Barbaro (2000) 112 A Crim R 551; [2000] NSWCCA 192 .................... [EA.59.180], [EA.66.60] R v Barbaro (unreported, NSW CCA, 20 July 1998) .................................... [EA.128.600] R v Barker (1988) 34 A Crim R 141 .................................................................. [EA.76.90] R v Barker [2010] EWCA 4 ......................................................................... [EA.165A.210] R v Barrett (2007) 16 VR 240; 171 A Crim R 315; [2007] VSCA 95 ............ [EA.89.90], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] R v Barron [1975] VR 496 ................................................................................ [EA.20.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R v Bartle (2003) 181 FLR 1; [2003] NSWCCA 329 .............. [EA.101.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.101.150] R v Bartlett (unreported, Vic CCA, 14 September 1994) .............................. [EA.165.420] R v Barton [2004] NSWCCA 229 ................................................................... [EA.101.180] R v Basanovic (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1100 ............................................ [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 .................................................................... [EA.165.360] R v Beattie (1996) 40 NSWLR 155 ........................................ [EA.165.240], [EA.165.420] R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30 ............................................................................... [EA.81.240] R v Belford (2011) 208 A Crim R 256; [2011] QCA 43 ........... [EA.90.270], [EA.90.360] R v Bell [2002] NSWCCA 2 ............................................................................... [EA.98.60] R v Bell; Ex parte Lees (1980) 146 CLR 141 ................................................ [EA.121.120] R v Benecke (1999) 106 A Crim R 282; [1999] NSWCCA 163 .................. [EA.137.150], [EA.165.450] R v Bennett (2004) 88 SASR 6; 144 A Crim R 215; [2004] SASC 52 .......... [EA.116.90] R v Berry (2007) 17 VR 153; 176 A Crim R 195 .......................................... [EA.137.150] R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510 .............................................................. [EA.141.150] R v Best [1998] 4 VR 603; (1998) 102 A Crim R 56 .................................... [EA.141.120] R v Betancur-Galvis [2003] NSWCCA 333 ................................................... [EA.141.120] R v Bevan [2002] NSWCCA 224 ...................................................................... [EA.44.120] R v Bikic [2001] NSWCCA 537 ...................................................................... [EA.128.360] R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 ................................................. [EA.46.90], [EA.46.150] R v Bisht (2013) 234 A Crim R 309; [2013] QCA 238 ................................... [EA.66.300] R v Blackburn [2005] 2 Cr App R 30 ............................................................... [EA.85.210] R v Blick (2000) 111 A Crim R 326; [2000] NSWCCA 61 .... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.210] R v Bolte [2010] SASC 112 .............................................................................. [EA.55.180] R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45 .................................................................... [EA.79.120] R v Booty (unreported, NSW CCA, Grove, Abadee, Simpson JJ, 19 December 1994) ................................................................... [EA.41.300], [EA.104.120] R v Bormann [2010] ACTSC 145 ................................................................... [EA.138.120] R v Boskovitz [1999] NSWCCA 437 .............................................................. [EA.101.150] R v Bourchas (2002) 113 A Crim R 413; [2002] NSWCCA 373;at [14] .......... [EA.4.270] R v Bowhay (No 3) [1998] NSWSC 660 .......................................................... [EA.137.60] R v Boyes (1861) 1 B & S 311; 121 ER 730 ................................................. [EA.128.360] R v Bozatsis (1997) 97 A Crim R 296 ............................................................ [EA.138.420] R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83 ..................................................................... [EA.90.60] R v Braham & Mason [1976] VR 547 ............................................................ [EA.117.120] R v Braun (unreported, NSW SC, Hidden J, 24 October 1997) ...................... [EA.85.210] R v Brdarovski (2006) 166 A Crim R 366 ...................................................... [EA.165.450] R v Bretherton [2013] NSWSC 1247 ................................................................ [EA.137.60] R v Bridgeman (1980) 24 SASR 278 .............................................................. [EA.137.150] R v Briske [2007] SASC 314 .......................................................................... [EA.141.150] R v Brooks (1998) 44 NSWLR 121; 102 A Crim R 367 ................................. [EA.13.210] R v Brown [2011] QCA 16 .............................................................................. [EA.101.210] R v Brownlow [2003] SASC 262 ...................................................................... [EA.112.60] R v Brownlowe (1987) 7 NSWLR 461 ........................................................... [EA.114.330] R v Bruno (unreported, NSW CCA, Gleeson CJ, Powell JA, Studdert J, 7 July 1997) ...................................................................................................... [EA.116.90] R v Buchanan (2004) 152 A Crim R 302; [2004] NSWSC 816 ................... [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240] R v Buckland [1977] 2 NSWLR 452 ................................................................ [EA.20.300] R v Buckley (2004) 149 A Crim R 122; [2004] VSCA 185 ............................. [EA.41.300] R v Bueti (1997) 70 SASR 370 ....................................................................... [EA.114.330] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lix

Table of Cases

R R R R R R

v v v v v v

R R R R R

v v v v v

R R R R

v v v v

Rv Rv R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv

Burns (1999) 107 A Crim R 330 ................................................................ [EA.46.150] Burns (2001) 123 A Crim R 226; [2001] SASC 263 .............................. [EA.165.480] Burns (2003) 137 A Crim R 557; [2003] NSWCCA 30 ......................... [EA.103.120] Burrell [2001] NSWSC 120 ....................................................................... [EA.137.90] Burt (2003) 140 A Crim R 555 ................................................................ [EA.141.150] Burton (2013) 237 A Crim R 238; [2013] NSWCCA 335 .... [EA.55.60], [EA.55.90], [EA.90.270], [EA.137.90] C (1993) 60 SASR 467 ............................................................................... [EA.79.120] C, CA [2015] SASCFC 143 ...................................................................... [EA.101.360] CBK [2014] QCA 35 ................................................................................... [EA.141.90] CHS (2006) 159 A Crim R 560; [2006] VSCA 19 .................................. [EA.101.360] Cakovski (2004) 149 A Crim R 1; [2004] NSWCCA 280 ....................... [EA.97.240], [EA.97.450], [EA.135.270] Calides (1983) 34 SASR 355 ................................................................... [EA.141.150] Callaghan [2001] VSCA 209 .................................................................... [EA.114.330] Camilleri (2001) 127 A Crim R 290; [2001] NSWCCA 527 ................. [EA.165.450] Camilleri (2007) 169 A Crim R 197; [2007] NSWCCA 36 .................. [EA.138.450], [EA.138.510], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570] Campbell [2004] NSWCCA 314 ................................................................ [EA.55.150] Campbell (2007) 175 A Crim R 79; [2007] VSCA 189 ......................... [EA.115.300], [EA.165.450] Campbell (unreported, Vic CCA, 14 November 1994) ........................... [EA.165.480] Capaldo [2015] SASCFC 56 ...................................................................... [EA.27.120] Carpenter [2011] ACTSC 71 .................................................................... [EA.114.150] Carr (2000) 117 A Crim R 272 .......................................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] Carroll (1985) 19 A Crim R 410 ............................................................... [EA.79.120] Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; 136 A Crim R 167 ............ [EA.97.390], [EA.101.420] Carusi (1997) 92 A Crim R 52 ........................................ [EA.114.240], [EA.115.150] Cassar [1999] NSWSC 436 ........................................................................ [EA.79.150] Cassar (Judgment No 12) [1999] NSWSC 352 .............. [EA.108.120], [EA.108.150] Cassar (Judgment No 28) [1999] NSWSC 651 ........................................... [EA.32.90] Cassar and Sleiman (Judgment No 17) [1999] NSWSC 436 ................... [EA.48.180] Cassebohm (2011) 209 A Crim R 496; [2011] SASCFC 29 ................ [EA.165B.210] Cavkic (2005) 155 A Crim R 275; [2005] VSCA 182 .............................. [EA.141.90] Cavkic, Athanasi and Clarke (No 2) [2009] VSCA 43 ..... [EA.55.330], [EA.141.120] Ceniccola [2010] NSWSC 1554 ................................................................. [EA.110.60] Centraco [2005] NSWCCA 11 ................................................................. [EA.101.150] Central Criminal Court; Ex parte Francis & Francis [1989] AC 346 .... [EA.125.90] Cerullo [2003] NSWCCA 201 .................................................................. [EA.101.150] Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153; 60 A Crim R 305 .................................... [EA.165.360] Chai [2002] NSWCCA 512 .................................................................... [EA.Intro.350] Challita (1988) 37 A Crim R 175 .............................................................. [EA.20.150] Chami, Skaf, Ghanem and Skaf [2004] NSWCCA 36 ...... [EA.137.120], [EA.141.90] Chan (2002) 131 A Crim R 66; [2002] NSWCCA 217 ......................... [EA.101.150], [EA.165.330], [EA.165.450] Chanthovixay [2004] NSWCCA 285 ............. [EA.55.60], [EA.55.330], [EA.137.120] Chapman [2002] NSWCCA 105 ................................................................ [EA.110.60] Chen (2002) 130 A Crim R 300; [2002] NSWCCA 174 .................... [EA.101A.120], [EA.141.150], [EA.165.210] Cheng [2015] SASCFC 189 ....................................................................... [EA.66.300] Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671 ................................................... [EA.43.210], [EA.106.90] Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; 167 A Crim R 504; [2006] VSCA 263 ......... [EA.55.330], [EA.81.60], [EA.165.480] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

lx

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R v Cittadini [2008] NSWCCA 256 ................................................................ [EA.101.150] R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506; [2001] NSWCCA 494 ....................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.270], [EA.135.150], [EA.135.210], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.360] R v Clark [2005] VSCA 294 ............................................................................. [EA.190.40] R v Clarke (1995) 78 A Crim R 226 .............................................................. [EA.141.120] R v Clarke (1997) 97 A Crim R 414 ................... [EA.90.60], [EA.90.210], [EA.114.240], [EA.115.300], [EA.116.90] R v Clarke (2005) 159 A Crim R 281 .............................................................. [EA.141.90] R v Clarke (unreported, NSW CCA, 8 March 1996) ....................................... [EA.20.150] R v Clough (1992) 28 NSWLR 396; 64 A Crim R 45 .................................. [EA.165.390] R v Clout (1995) 41 NSWLR 312 .......................................... [EA.165.300], [EA.165.450] R v Clune (1999) 72 SASR 420 ................................................. [EA.20.180], [EA.39.120] R v Clune (No 1) [1975] VR 723 ...................................................................... [EA.39.240] R v Coates (unreported, WA CCA, 1 March 1994) .......................................... [EA.116.90] R v Coe [2002] NSWCCA 385 ...... [EA.41.300], [EA.89.90], [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90], [EA.165.270] R v Colby [1999] NSWCCA 261 ..................... [EA.101.90], [EA.101.120], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.300], [EA.101.360] R v Colley [2003] NSWCCA 323 ..................................................................... [EA.79.150] R v Collins [2001] NSWCCA 386 .................................................................. [EA.165.480] R v Collisson (2003) 139 A Crim R 389; [2003] NSWCCA 212 .................. [EA.128.540] R v Colville (2003) 137 A Crim R 543; [2003] NSWCCA 23 ........................ [EA.20.180] R v Compton (2013) 237 A Crim R 177; [2013] SASCFC 134 ...................... [EA.141.90] R v Congressi (1974) 9 SASR 257 ................................................................. [EA.104.240] R v Conley (1982) 30 SASR 226 .................................................................... [EA.115.150] R v Connors [2000] NSWCCA 470 ........................................ [EA.165.210], [EA.165.480] R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52 .......................... [EA.81.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.210], [EA.165.480] R v Cook (unreported, NSW CCA, Smart, Ireland, Dunford JJ, 24 August 1998) ..................................................................................... [EA.116.90], [EA.116.120] R v Coombe (unreported, NSW CCA, Hunt CJ ....................... [EA.138.60], [EA.138.240] R v Cooney [2013] NSWCCA 312 ...................................................................... [EA.90.60] R v Copeland (1997) 194 LSJS 1 ................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Corak (1982) 30 SASR 404 ..................................................................... [EA.104.240] R v Cordell [2009] VSCA 128 ........................................................................ [EA.141.150] R v Corish (2006) 96 SASR 207; 170 A Crim R 162; [2006] SASC 369 ...... [EA.55.180] R v Cornelissen and Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 449 .................. [EA.83.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] R v Cornell [2015] NSWCCA 258 ........................ [EA.192A.40], [EA.95.60], [EA.98.90] R v Cornwell (2003) 57 NSWLR 82; 141 A Crim R 164; [2003] NSWSC 97 ................................................................................................................. [EA.138.120] R v Cosford and McDonnell-Smith [2007] SASC 147 ................................... [EA.141.120] R v Coss [2015] QCA 33 ................................................................................... [EA.66.300] R v Coswello [2009] VSCA 300 ....................................................................... [EA.46.120] R v Cotic (2000) 118 A Crim R 393 ............................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Coulstock (1998) 99 A Crim R 143 ......................................................... [EA.138.240] R v Covill (2000) 114 A Crim R 111 .............................................................. [EA.165.240] R v Cox & Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153 ........................................................... [EA.125.90] R v Crampton (1991) 92 Cr App R 372 ........................................................... [EA.85.210] R v Creamer (1989) 43 A Crim R 92 ............................................................. [EA.136.240] R v Creed [2000] NSWCCA 280 .................................................................... [EA.165.540] R v Crisologo (1998) 99 A Crim R 178 ..................................... [EA.66.60], [EA.135.270] R v Cuenco (2007) 16 VR 118; [2007] VSCA 41 .............................................. [EA.89.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxi

Table of Cases

R R R R R

v v v v v

R R R R

v v v v

R R R R

v v v v

Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv R R R R R R

v v v v v v

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

R R R R

v v v v

Cummins (2004) 147 A Crim R 585; [2004] VSCA 164 ........................ [EA.101.150] Cunningham (1992) 61 A Crim R 412 ....................................................... [EA.26.150] D (1997) 45 NSWLR 744; 98 A Crim R 151 ........................................... [EA.20.180] D [2008] ACTSC 82 ................................................................................. [EA.114.180] DBG (2002) 133 A Crim R 227; [2002] NSWCCA 328 ....................... [EA.108.150], [EA.136.150], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.480] DCC (2004) 151 A Crim R 4; [2004] VSCA 230 ................................... [EA.101.360] DG [2010] VSCA 173 ................................................................................ [EA.137.60] DM [2006] QCA 79 .................................................................................... [EA.66.300] D’Orta-Ekenaike [1998] 2 VR 140; (1998) 99 A Crim R 454 .................. [EA.81.60], [EA.165.480] DRG (2004) 150 A Crim R 496; [2004] SASC 394 .... [EA.165B.270], [EA.101.360] DWH [1999] NSWCCA 255 ..................................................................... [EA.136.150] Da Silva [1990] 1 All ER 29 ...................................................................... [EA.32.360] Dalley (2002) 132 A Crim R 169; [2002] NSWCCA 284 ..................... [EA.138.150], [EA.138.510], [EA.138.570] Damic [1982] 2 NSWLR 750 ..................................................................... [EA.27.120] Daniel [2010] SASCFC 62; 207 A Crim R 449 ...................................... [EA.141.150] Dann [2000] NSWCCA 185 ....................... [EA.55.570], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.135.210], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120] Darmody [2010] VSCA 41 ....................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.Intro.300] Darrington (1979) 1 A Crim R 124 ............................................................. [EA.80.90] Darwiche (2006) 166 A Crim R 28; [2006] NSWSC 924 ....................... [EA.59.180], [EA.114.90], [EA.114.240], [EA.115.150], [EA.115.180], [EA.116.90] Davies (2005) 153 A Crim R 217 ............................................................ [EA.114.150] Davis [1999] NSWCCA 15 ................................................ [EA.20.180], [EA.165.480] Davis [2007] VSCA 276 ............................................................................. [EA.41.300] Dawson-Ryan [2009] SASC 259 .............................................................. [EA.101.240] De-Cressac (1985) 1 NSWLR 381 ........................................................... [EA.114.240] Dean (No 2) (unreported, NSW SC, Dunford J, 12 March 1997) ........... [EA.32.180], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180] Debono (2012) 225 A Crim R 585; [2012] VSC 476 ............................. [EA.130.360] Debs [2008] VSCA 240 ............................................................................ [EA.101.150] Delaney (1989) 88 Cr App R 338 .............................................................. [EA.85.210] Demiroz [2003] NSWCCA 146 .................................................................. [EA.116.90] Deng [2001] NSWCCA 153 ..................................................................... [EA.139.150] Dennis [1999] NSWCCA 23 ................................................ [EA.41.300], [EA.46.150] Derbas (1993) 66 A Crim R 327 .............................................................. [EA.165.420] Diamond (unreported, NSW CCA, 19 June 1998) .................................. [EA.104.180] Diaz [2004] NSWCCA 251 ...................................................................... [EA.165.450] Diez-Orozco [2003] NSWSC 1050 .................................. [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360] Dimian (1995) 83 A Crim R 358 ............................................................... [EA.189.40] Dixon (1992) 28 NSWLR 215 .................................................................... [EA.85.120] Dixon [2001] NSWCCA 39 .............................................. [EA.101.360], [EA.108.210] Dodd (2002) 135 A Crim R 32; [2002] NSWCCA 418 .......................... [EA.116.120] Doherty (2003) 6 VR 393 ......................................................................... [EA.141.120] Doney (2001) 126 A Crim R 271; [2001] NSWCCA 463 ...................... [EA.165.480] Donnelly (1997) 96 A Crim R 432 ............... [EA.85.150], [EA.85.210], [EA.90.240], [EA.189.140] Doolan [2014] QCA 246 .......................................................................... [EA.165.480] Drollett [2005] NSWCCA 356 ......................... [EA.55.270], [EA.76.90], [EA.79.150] Dudko [2002] NSWCCA 336 ..................................................................... [EA.69.240] Duncan and Perre [2004] NSWCCA 431 ......................... [EA.84.150], [EA.114.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

lxii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v Dungay (2001) 126 A Crim R 216; [2001] NSWCCA 443 ........................ [EA.90.60] v Dupas [2011] VSC 180 ................................ [EA.79.120], [EA.80.150], [EA.135.270] v Dupas (No 3) [2009] VSCA 202 ........................................ [EA.116.90], [EA.165.390] v Duryea [2008] SASC 363 ......................................................................... [EA.101.150] v Dwyer [1999] NSWCCA 47 ..................................................................... [EA.141.150] v Dyers (unreported, NSW CCA, Grove, Newman, Hidden JJ, 24 October 1997) ................................................................................................. [EA.66.60] v E (1995) 89 A Crim R 325 ....................................................................... [EA.141.150] v ERJ (2010) 200 A Crim R 270; [2010] VSCA 61 ................................... [EA.165.540] v Eade [2000] NSWCCA 369 ...................................................................... [EA.138.240] v Eade [2002] NSWCCA 257 ........................................................................ [EA.37.150] v Eades [1972] Crim LR 99 ........................................................................ [EA.106.240] v Edelsten (1990) 51 A Crim R 397 .............................................................. [EA.90.300] v Edwards (unreported, Vic CCA, Charles, Callaway JJA, Vincent AJA, 20 December 1995) .................................................................................... [EA.141.120] v El-Azzi [2004] NSWCCA 455 ..................... [EA.101.360], [EA.103.60], [EA.104.90], [EA.104.180], [EA.112.60], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25 ................ [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.165.480] v El-Kheir [2004] NSWCCA 461 .................. [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60], [EA.165.480], [EA.192.40] v El Masri [2010] NSWSC 1277 .................................................................. [EA.65.240] v El Mostafa [2007] NSWDC 326 .............................................................. [EA.115.150] v Eldridge [2002] NSWCCA 205 .......................................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] v Ellem (1994) 75 A Crim R 370 ................................................................ [EA.104.120] v Ellis (1998) 100 A Crim R 49 .................................................................... [EA.20.180] v Ellis (2003) 58 NSWLR 700; 144 A Crim R 1; [2003] NSWCCA 319 ...................... [EA.98.120], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.450], [EA.104.180], [EA.112.60] v Ellis [2010] SASC 118 ............................................................................. [EA.101.240] v Em [2003] NSWCCA 374 ...... [EA.90.90], [EA.90.210], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.150], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.270] v Esho; R v Sako [2001] NSWCCA 415 ............ [EA.38.150], [EA.81.60], [EA.192.80] v Esposito (1998) 105 A Crim R 27 ................ [EA.27.120], [EA.38.150], [EA.66.210], [EA.81.60], [EA.85.210], [EA.85.240], [EA.85.270], [EA.85.300], [EA.135.210] v Evan (2006) 175 A Crim R 1; [2006] QCA 527 ....................................... [EA.116.90] v Everitt [1921] VLR 245 .............................................................................. [EA.110.90] v Eyles [2002] NSWCCA 510 ....................................................................... [EA.97.120] v F (2002) 129 A Crim R 126; [2002] NSWCCA 125 ...... [EA.101.120], [EA.101.240] v FAE [2014] QCA 69 .................................................................................. [EA.165.480] v FD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392; [2006] NSWCCA 31 ................................. [EA.53.90] v FE [2013] NSWSC 1692 .... [EA.90.150], [EA.90.210], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.540], [EA.139.120] v Fahad (2004) 146 A Crim R 169; [2004] VSCA 28 ............................... [EA.116.120] v Fairbairn [2011] ACTSC 78; 212 A Crim R 32 ............ [EA.Intro.120], [EA.59.180], [EA.66.60] v Falzon (No 2) [1993] 1 Qd R 618 ........................................................... [EA.165.360] v Familic (1994) 75 A Crim R 229 .............. [EA.89.150], [EA.101.210], [EA.141.120] v Farler (1837) 8 C & P 106 ...................................................................... [EA.165.360] v Farr (2001) 118 A Crim R 399 ................................................................ [EA.138.270] v Favata [2006] VSCA 44 ........................................................................... [EA.165.450] v Feiloakitau (unreported, Qld CA, 14 December 1993) ........................... [EA.114.240] v Ferguson [2009] VSCA 198 ................................................. [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxiii

Table of Cases

R v Fernando [1999] NSWCCA 66 ...................... [EA.78.60], [EA.90.60], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.450] R v Fetherston [2006] VSCA 278 ................................................................... [EA.101.360] R v Filitis [2004] NSWCCA 68 ...................................................................... [EA.114.240] R v Finlay [2007] QCA 400 ............................................................................ [EA.165.300] R v Finn [2014] SASCFC 46 ........................................................................ [EA.165B.210] R v Fish and Swan [2002] NSWCCA 196 ..................................................... [EA.164.150] R v Fisher [2001] NSWCCA 380 ..................... [EA.114.120], [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] R v Flavel [2001] NSWCCA 227 .................................................................... [EA.101.150] R v Fletcher (2005) 156 A Crim R 308; [2005] NSWCCA 338 .................... [EA.97.120], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.450] R v Flood [1999] NSWCCA 198 ............................................ [EA.165.240], [EA.165.330] R v Folbigg [2003] NSWCCA 17 ................................................................... [EA.101.210] R v Folbigg (2005) 152 A Crim R 35; [2005] NSWCCA 23 ........................ [EA.101.360] R v Foley (1998) 105 A Crim R 1 .................................................................... [EA.46.150] R v Folli [2001] NSWCCA 531 ................................................................... [EA.165B.270] R v Ford [1998] NSWSC 96 ........................................................................... [EA.114.180] R v Ford [2006] QCA 142 ............................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306 .... [EA.55.390], [EA.55.600], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.480], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.450], [EA.137.210] R v Fordham (1997) 98 A Crim R 359 .......... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.360] R v Fowler (1985) 39 SASR 440 ...................................................................... [EA.79.240] R v Fowler [2000] NSWCCA 142 ........................ [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.165.480] R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166; [2003] NSWCCA 321 .................... [EA.141.120], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480], [EA.192.100] R v Fowler (unreported, NSW SC, 15 May 1997) .................. [EA.103.60], [EA.103.120] R v Frangulis [2006] NSWCCA 363 ................................................................ [EA.90.270] R v Franicevic [2010] QCA 36 ......................................................................... [EA.116.90] R v Fraser [1998] NSWSC 286 ...................................................................... [EA.101.360] R v Frazer [2002] NSWCCA 59 ....................................................................... [EA.184.20] R v Frugtniet [1999] 2 VR 293; (1999) 107 A Crim R 161; [1999] VSCA 58 ............................................................................................. [EA.85.150], [EA.139.90] R v Fuge [2001] NSWCCA 208 ...................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Fuller [2001] NSWCCA 390 .................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Fulling [1987] QB 136 ........................................................... [EA.84.60], [EA.85.210] R v Fung (2002) 136 A Crim R 95; [2002] NSWCCA 479 .......................... [EA.101.150] R v G [2002] ACTSC 85 ................................................................................... [EA.13.300] R v G [2005] NSWCCA 291 ............................................................................... [EA.81.60] R v GA (unreported, NSW CCA, Gleeson CJ, James J, Sperling J, 17 July 1997) .............................................................................................................. [EA.85.210] R v GAC (2007) 178 A Crim R 408; [2007] NSWCCA 315 ........................ [EA.101.180], [EA.101.450], [EA.137.60] R v GAC (unreported, NSW CCA, Gleeson CJ, McInerney, Sully JJ, 1 April 1997) ............................... [EA.38.150], [EA.135.90], [EA.137.60], [EA.192.100] R v GAJ [2011] QCA 141 ................................................................................. [EA.20.180] R v GAO [2012] QCA 54 ................................................................................ [EA.165.480] R v GAR [2003] NSWCCA 224 ..................... [EA.135.180], [EA.137.150], [EA.165.480] R v GED [2003] NSWCCA 296 ........................................................................ [EA.46.150] R v GH (2000) 105 FCR 419 .......................................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.84.60] R v GJH (2001) 122 A Crim R 361 ................................................................ [EA.165.480] R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317; 125 A Crim R 315; [2001] NSWCCA 413 .......................................... [EA.79.240], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150] R v GTN [2003] VSCA 38 .............................................................................. [EA.165.480] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R v GVV (2008) 20 VR 395; 183 A Crim R 242; [2008] VSCA 170 .......... [EA.101.360], [EA.165.480], [EA.165B.270] R v GW [2016] HCA 6 ................ [EA.13.180], [EA.13.270], [EA.13.330], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.480] R v Gale (2012) 217 A Crim R 487; [2012] NSWCCA 174 ....... [EA.98.90], [EA.98.120] R v Galea (2004) 148 A Crim R 220; [2004] NSWCCA 227 ........................ [EA.103.60], [EA.141.90] R v Gallagher (1997) 96 A Crim R 300 ............................................................. [EA.89.90] R v Gallagher [2013] NSWSC 1102 ................................................................. [EA.90.240] R v Gallagher [2015] NSWCCA 228 ............. [EA.138.570], [EA.138.630], [EA.138.660] R v Galli (2001) 127 A Crim R 493; [2001] NSWCCA 504 ........................ [EA.137.150] R v Gao [2003] NSWCCA 390 ........................................................................... [EA.81.60] R v Gardner (2001) 123 A Crim R 439; [2001] NSWCCA 381 ..................... [EA.20.270] R v Garth (1994) 73 A Crim R 215 .................................................................. [EA.90.240] R v Gassy (No 3) [2005] SASC 496 ............................................................... [EA.141.120] R v Gazzignato and Stevens [2004] TASSC 6 .................................................. [EA.85.210] R v Gee (2000) 113 A Crim R 376 ..................... [EA.59.180], [EA.66.60], [EA.101.360], [EA.114.60], [EA.114.90], [EA.115.60] R v Gemmill (2004) 8 VR 242 .......................................................................... [EA.79.480] R v George (1981) 4 A Crim R 12 ................................................................... [EA.20.150] R v Georgiev (2001) 119 A Crim R 363 ......................................................... [EA.101.150] R v Georgiou (2005) 153 A Crim R 288; [2005] NSWCCA 189 ................... [EA.59.180] R v Georgiou [2005] NSWCCA 237 ............................................ [EA.48.60], [EA.48.180] R v Gibbs (2004) 154 ACTR 1; 146 A Crim R 503; [2004] ACTSC 63 ...... [EA.101.180] R v Gibson (1999) 110 A Crim R 180 ................. [EA.59.90], [EA.59.180], [EA.114.240] R v Gibson [2002] NSWCCA 401 ............................................ [EA.114.210], [EA.137.60] R v Gilbert (unreported, NSW CCA, Grove, Levine, Dowd JJ, 10 December 1998) ................................................................... [EA.41.300], [EA.101.360] R v Gillard (1999) 105 A Crim R 479 .............................................................. [EA.66.180] R v Gilmore [1977] 2 NSWLR 935 .................................................................. [EA.79.120] R v Giovannone (2002) 140 A Crim R 1; [2002] NSWCCA 323 .................. [EA.48.180], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] R v Giri (2001) 121 A Crim R 568; [2001] NSWCCA 197 .... [EA.20.180], [EA.165.450] R v Gittany (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1670 ....................................................... [EA.122.180] R v Glasby (2000) 115 A Crim R 465 ...................... [EA.8.60], [EA.18.60], [EA.59.180], [EA.165.480] R v Glencourse (1995) 78 A Crim R 256 ....................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Glennon (No 2) (2001) 7 VR 631 ............................................................ [EA.101.360] R v Glennon (No 3) [2005] VSCA 262 ........................................................... [EA.101.360] R v Glossop [2001] NSWCCA 165 ................................................................. [EA.137.120] R v Glover [2002] NSWCCA 376 ................................................................... [EA.165.450] R v Goldenburg (1988) 88 Cr App R 285 ........................................................ [EA.85.210] R v Gonzalez-Betes [2001] NSWCCA 226 ............................ [EA.101A.120], [EA.108.60] R v Goodall [1982] VR 33 .............................................................................. [EA.114.240] R v Goss [2007] VSCA 116 ............................................................................ [EA.165.480] R v Gould [2009] VSCA 130 .......................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Gover (2000) 118 A Crim R 8 .... [EA.8.90], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.210] R v Graham (unreported, NSW CCA, Newman, Levine, Barr JJ, 2 September 1997) ........................................................................................... [EA.89.150] R v Grant (2001) 127 A Crim R 312; [2001] NSWCCA 486 ......................... [EA.90.300] R v Grattan [2005] NSWCCA 306 ............................................. [EA.66.60], [EA.101.150] R v Gray [2004] SASC 394 ............................................................................ [EA.165.480] R v Grech [1997] 2 VR 609 ............................................................................ [EA.101.360] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxv

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v

Greciun-King [1981] 2 NSWLR 469 ......................................................... [EA.20.150] Green (unreported, NSW CCA, 17 December 1993) .............................. [EA.165.420] Greenham [1999] NSWCCA 8 .................. [EA.97.450], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] Grogan (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1192 ....................................................... [EA.137.120] H (1997) 92 A Crim R 168 ...................................................... [EA.60.60], [EA.66.60] HAB [2006] QCA 80 ................................................................................... [EA.66.300] HJS [2000] NSWCCA 205 ....................................................................... [EA.108.210] HMB [2000] NSWCCA 554 ..................................................................... [EA.114.240] Hackett [2006] VSCA 138 ........................................................................ [EA.116.120] Haddad (2000) 116 A Crim R 12; [2000] NSWCCA 351 ...................... [EA.138.150] Hagarty (2004) 145 A Crim R 138; [2004] NSWCCA 89 .................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] R v Haidley [1984] VR 229 ............................................................................. [EA.114.240] R v Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368 .................................................................... [EA.79.480] R v Hall [2001] NSWSC 827 ....................................................... [EA.48.180], [EA.88.60] R v Hamilton (1993) 68 A Crim R 298 ............................................................ [EA.110.60] R v Hamilton (unreported, NSW CCA, 26 March 1996) ............................... [EA.141.120] R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359; [2000] NSWCCA 503 ....... [EA.66A.60], [EA.59.210], [EA.81.240] R v Hanrahan [1967] 2 NSWR 717 ............................................................... [EA.103.120] R v Harbulot [2003] NSWCCA 141 ................ [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270] R v Hare [2007] SASC 427 ............................................................................. [EA.165.480] R v Harker [2004] NSWCCA 427 ................... [EA.100.60], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.450], [EA.192.40] R v Hart (2002) 131 A Crim R 609; [2002] NSWCCA 313 ........................... [EA.110.60] R v Hartley (unreported, SA CCA, Prior, Ollson, Perry, 6 September 1994) ............................................................................................................ [EA.165.450] R v Hartwick [2005] VSCA 264 ..................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Harvey [1988] Crim LR 241 ...................................................................... [EA.85.210] R v Harvey (unreported, NSW CCA, Beazley JA, Smart, James JJ, 11 December 1996) .............................................................................................. [EA.78.60] R v Hasan [2005] 2 Cr App R 22 ....................................................................... [EA.81.60] R v Haughbro (1997) 135 ACTR 15 .............. [EA.138.150], [EA.138.420], [EA.138.690] R v Hawes (1994) 35 NSWLR 294 .................................................................. [EA.44.120] R v Hawi (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1648 .................................. [EA.130.150], [EA.130.390] R v Heaney (2009) 22 VR 164; [2009] VSCA 74; 194 A Crim R 562 .......... [EA.46.150] R v Heaton [1993] Crim LR 593 ........................................................................ [EA.84.60] R v Hein [2013] SASCFC 97 .............................................................................. [EA.90.60] R v Heinze (2005) 153 A Crim R 380; [2005] VSCA 124 .............................. [EA.55.180] R v Hellwig [2007] 1 Qd R 17; 161 A Crim R 489; [2006] QCA 179 ........... [EA.66.300] R v Helmhout (2000) 112 A Crim R 10; [2000] NSWSC 208 ........................ [EA.90.240] R v Helmhout [2000] NSWSC 185 ................................................................... [EA.85.210] R v Helmhout (2001) 125 A Crim R 257; [2001] NSWCCA 372 .................... [EA.90.60], [EA.138.270], [EA.138.420], [EA.138.450], [EA.138.480], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570], [EA.138.690] R v Henderson [2010] EWCA Crim 1269 ........................................................ [EA.79.480] R v Hennessy [2001] NSWCCA 36 ..................... [EA.114.60], [EA.114.90], [EA.115.60], [EA.165.450] R v Hentschel [1988] VR 362 ......................................................................... [EA.114.330] R v Heron (The Times, 22 November 1993) ...................................................... [EA.84.60] R v Hettiarachchi [2009] VSCA 270 .......................................... [EA.110.90], [EA.141.90] R v Heuston (1995) 81 A Crim R 387 .............................................................. [EA.116.90] R v Heuston (2003) 140 A Crim R 422; [2003] NSWCCA 172 ................. [EA.165B.270] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R R R R R

v v v v v

R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v

R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v v

R R R R

v v v v

R R R R

v v v v

Heyes [2006] VSCA 86 ........................................................ [EA.81.60], [EA.165.480] Hickey (1995) 89 A Crim R 554 .............................................................. [EA.165.330] Hilder (1997) 97 A Crim R 70 ................................................................... [EA.60.150] Hill [2014] QCA 107 .................................................................................. [EA.55.330] Hines (No 2) (2014) 242 A Crim R 316; [2014] NSWSC 990 ................. [EA.26.60], [EA.26.150] Hirst [2013] SASCFC 54 .......................................................................... [EA.165.480] Ho (2002) 130 A Crim R 545; [2002] NSWCCA 147 ..... [EA.141.90], [EA.165.480] Hodge [2002] NSWCCA 10 ..................................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.89.90] Hogan [2001] NSWCCA 292 ................................................. [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150] Holland [2002] NSWCCA 469 ................................................................. [EA.165.480] Honan (1996) 85 A Crim R 481 ................................................................ [EA.84.150] Hoogwerf (1992) 63 A Crim R 302 ........................................................... [EA.80.150] Hore [2005] NSWCCA 3 ................................................. [EA.128.540], [EA.128.690] Horsfall (1989) 44 A Crim R 345 ...................................... [EA.137.60], [EA.165.450] Horton (1998) 104 A Crim R 306 ........................................... [EA.56.60], [EA.81.60] Houssein [2003] NSWCCA 74 ........................................... [EA.37.150], [EA.104.180] Howard (2005) 152 A Crim R 7; [2005] NSWCCA 25 ........ [EA.56.60], [EA.78.60], [EA.79.120] Hudson [2016] QCA 80 ............................................................................ [EA.165.270] Humble [2009] SASC 51 .......................................................................... [EA.165.480] Hunt [2003] NSWCCA 301 ...................................................................... [EA.165.480] Hunt [2014] NTSC 19 ...................................................... [EA.138.120], [EA.138.540] Hunter [2014] QCA 59 ............................................................................. [EA.165.480] Hutton (1932) 32 SR (NSW) 282 ................................................................ [EA.31.60] IK (2004) 147 A Crim R 237; [2004] SASC 280 ........... [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] Ibrahim [2001] NSWCCA 72 ..................................................................... [EA.137.60] Ibrahim [2007] NSWSC 1140 .................................................................... [EA.55.180] Inamata (2003) 137 A Crim R 510; [2003] NSWCCA 19 .................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] Inston (2009) 103 SASR 265; [2009] SASC 89 ...................................... [EA.101.240] J-LJ [2000] 2 SCR 600 .................................. [EA.79.120], [EA.79.300], [EA.110.60] J [No 2] [1998] 3 VR 602 ........................................................................ [EA.165.480] JBV [2002] NSWCCA 212 ....................................................................... [EA.165.450] JCG (2001) 127 A Crim R 493; [2001] NSWCCA 504 ......................... [EA.165.480] JF [2009] ACTSC 104 .................................................................................. [EA.84.60] JGW [1999] NSWCCA 116 ....... [EA.81.60], [EA.81.240], [EA.184.20], [EA.191.20] JJN [2003] NSWCCA 402 ....................... [EA.165.270], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] JK [2005] QCA 307 .................................................................................. [EA.165.480] JL [2007] QCA 131 .................................................................................. [EA.165.480] JRW [2014] NTSC 52 ................................................................................. [EA.97.120] JS (2007) 175 A Crim R 108 .................................................................. [EA.Intro.300] JSM (2013) 117 SASR 535; 235 A Crim R 73; [2013] SASCFC 96 .... [EA.103.120], [EA.108.60] JTB [2003] NSWCCA 295 ................................................... [EA.13.210], [EA.13.300] Jack (1894) 15 NSWR 196 ........................................................................ [EA.45.150] Jackson (1987) 8 NSWLR 116 ..................................................................... [EA.10.60] Jacobs (2004) 151 A Crim R 452; [2004] NSWCCA 462 ..................... [EA.165.210], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360] Jacobson (Ruling No 5) [2014] VSC 554 .............................. [EA.56.60], [EA.135.90] Jakimov [2007] VSCA 9 ........................................................................... [EA.165.480] Jamal (2000) 116 A Crim R 45 ........................................ [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240] James (unreported, NSW CCA, 30 July 1998) ................ [EA.118.120], [EA.118.600] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxvii

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v

Rv Rv R R R R R R

v v v v v v

Rv Rv R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v

R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv

Jamieson (1992) 60 A Crim R 68 ........................................ [EA.79.120], [EA.137.60] Jang [1999] NSWSC 1040 ............................ [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.210] Jarrett [2012] NSWCCA 81 ....................................................................... [EA.90.240] Jeffrey (1991) 60 A Crim R 384 ................................................................. [EA.79.240] Jenkyns (1993) 71 A Crim R 1 .......................................... [EA.137.60], [EA.165.450] Jennings [2010] NSWCCA 193 ........................................... [EA.46.60], [EA.101.180] Jensen [2009] VSCA 266 ........................................................................... [EA.55.180] Jervis (1998) 101 A Crim R 1 .................................................................... [EA.90.300] Jiminez (2000) 119 A Crim R 299; [2000] NSWCCA 390 .................... [EA.138.120], [EA.165.450] Johnson & Honeysett [2013] QCA 91 ..................................................... [EA.141.150] Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362 ......... [EA.165B.270], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480], [EA.165.540] Johnston [2004] NSWCCA 58 ................. [EA.165.210], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360] Joiner (2002) 133 A Crim R 90; [2002] NSWCCA 354 ........................ [EA.101.210] Jones & Sullivan [1978] 2 All ER 718 ................................ [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] Jovanovic (1997) 42 NSWLR 520 ........................................................... [EA.165.480] Jung [2006] NSWSC 658 ........................................................................... [EA.79.180] Juric (2002) 4 VR 411; 129 A Crim R 408; [2002] VSCA 77 ................ [EA.79.240], [EA.90.270], [EA.137.150] K (1997) 96 A Crim R 443 .............................................. [EA.165.450], [EA.165.540] K (2003) 59 NSWLR 431; 144 A Crim R 468; [2003] NSWCCA 406 .... [EA.9.120], [EA.137.60] KCW [1999] NSWCCA 112 ............................................... [EA.41.300], [EA.165.480] KDY (2008) 185 A Crim R 270; [2008] VSCA 104 ............................... [EA.141.150] KDY [2008] VSCA 104 ............................................................................ [EA.141.150] KH [2002] ACTSC 108 ............................................................................. [EA.110.120] KJ (2005) 154 A Crim R 139; [2005] VSCA 153 ................................ [EA.165B.270] Kalajdic (2005) 157 A Crim R 300; [2005] VSCA 160 ......................... [EA.165.480] Kalazjich & Orrock (1989) 39 A Crim R 415 ......................................... [EA.101.150] Kaldor [2004] NSWCCA 425 .................................................................. [EA.141.120] Karger (2002) 83 SASR 135 ...................................................................... [EA.79.480] Kassoua [1999] NSWCCA 13 .................................................................. [EA.101.150] Kaukura (unreported, NSW SC, Badgery-Parker J, 13 August 1997) ...... [EA.32.180] Kazzi (2003) 140 A Crim R 545; [2003] NSWCCA 241 ................. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.65.150] Keir (2002) 127 A Crim R 198 ................................................................ [EA.165.480] Kelsall (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 253 ....................................................... [EA.126B.300] Kemble (1990) 91 Cr App R 178 ............................................................... [EA.23.120] Kennedy [1998] NSWSC 671 ........................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Kesisyan [2003] NSWCCA 259 ......................................... [EA.60.150], [EA.165.480] Khan (unreported, NSW SC, Hidden J, 22 November 1995) ................... [EA.18.120] Khazaal [2006] NSWSC 1061 .................................................................. [EA.130.390] King [2012] ACTSC 176 ............................................................................ [EA.97.120] Kingswell [1998] NSWSC 412 ...................... [EA.38.240], [EA.38.270], [EA.116.90] Kirby [2000] NSWCCA 330 ........................... [EA.53.90], [EA.114.90], [EA.115.60], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] Klamo (2008) 18 VR 644; 184 A Crim R 262; [2008] VSCA 75 ............ [EA.79.480] Klobucar [2013] ACTSC 118 ....................................................................... [EA.78.60] Kneebone (1999) 47 NSWLR 450; [1999] NSWCCA 279 ........................ [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150] Knight (2001) 120 A Crim R 381 ................................................................ [EA.81.60] Knight [2005] NSWCCA 241 .................. [EA.137.120], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.450] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

lxviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R v Knight [2010] QCA 372 ............................................................................ [EA.165.450] R v Koeleman (2000) 2 VR 20 ........................................................................ [EA.141.120] R v Kolalich (unreported, NSW CCA, Gleeson CJ, Newman, Hidden JJ, 17 June 1996) .............................................................................................. [EA.138.150] R v Kostaras (2002) 133 A Crim R 399; [2002] SASC 326 ......................... [EA.101.360] R v Kostic (2004) 151 A Crim R 10 ............................................................... [EA.114.240] R v Kotzmann [1999] 2 VR 123; (1999) 105 A Crim R 243 .......................... [EA.79.480], [EA.141.120], [EA.165.450] R v Kovacs (2000) 111 A Crim R 374; [2000] NSWCCA 74 ........................ [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.137.60] R v Kragujevic (unreported, SA CCA, Prior, Olsson, Duggan JJ, 17 April 1996) .............................................................................................................. [EA.20.180] R v Kranz (1991) 53 A Crim R 331 ................................................................ [EA.165.420] R v Kuruvinakunnel [2012] QCA 330 ............................................................. [EA.141.120] R v Kuzmanovic [2005] NSWSC 771 ............................................................... [EA.65.150] R v L, GA [2015] SASCFC 166 ........................................................................ [EA.27.120] R v LB [2011] NTCCA 4 ................................................................................... [EA.55.180] R v LL (unreported, NSW SC, Smart J, 1 April 1996) ...................................... [EA.84.60] R v LR (2005) 156 A Crim R 354; [2005] QCA 368 ..................................... [EA.165.480] R v LRG [2006] VSCA 288 ............................................................................. [EA.141.120] R v LTP [2004] NSWCCA 109 ............................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.540] R v Ladocki [2004] NSWCCA 336 ......................................... [EA.138.150], [EA.138.450] R v Lam (2002) 135 A Crim R 302; [2002] NSWCCA 377 ..... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150] R v Lamb [2002] NSWSC 323 ........................................................................ [EA.101.150] R v Lane (1996) 66 FCR 144 ................................................. [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157 .......................................................................... [EA.81.60] R v Lars (1994) 73 A Crim R 91 ................................................ [EA.26.150], [EA.189.40] R v Lau (unreported, NSW CCA, Priestley JA, Abadee, Kirby JJ, 2 December 1998) .......................................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Lavery (No 2) (1979) 20 SASR 430 .......................................................... [EA.39.120] R v Lawrence [1984] 3 NSWLR 674 ................................................................ [EA.110.60] R v Lawrence (unreported, NSW CCA, 19 April 1979) .................................. [EA.46.150] R v Laws (2000) 114 A Crim R 70 ..................................................................... [EA.9.120] R v Lawson [2000] NSWCCA 214 ..................................................................... [EA.60.60] R v Le [2000] NSWCCA 49 ......................................................... [EA.55.60], [EA.66.180] R v Le [2001] NSWSC 174 ................................................................................. [EA.38.60] R v Le (2002) 130 A Crim R 256; [2002] NSWCCA 193 ............................ [EA.114.240], [EA.135.150], [EA.165.270] R v Le (2002) 54 NSWLR 474; 130 A Crim R 44; [2002] NSWCCA 186 ........................ [EA.Intro.350], [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.38.210] R v Leak [1969] SASR 172 ............................................................................... [EA.41.300] R v Leask [1999] NSWCCA 33 ...................................................................... [EA.101.150] R v Lebler [2003] NSWCCA 362 ................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 ................................................................................ [EA.90.60] R v Lee (2000) 50 NSWLR 289; [2000] NSWCCA 444 ............................. [NSW.CP.260] R v Lee [2001] ACTSC 133 .............................................................................. [EA.79.120] R v Lee (unreported, NSW CCA, Cole JA, Dowd, Sperling JJ, 5 May 1997) ....................................... [EA.38.330], [EA.115.300], [EA.165.450], [EA.189.40] R v Lemura [1998] NSWSC 699 ............................................ [EA.165.450], [EA.165.540] R v Leroy [2000] NSWCCA 302 ............................................. [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240] R v Lester [2010] QCA 152 ................................................................................ [EA.89.90] R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405; [1999] NSWCCA 287 ......... [EA.76.90], [EA.78.60], [EA.79.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxix

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv R R R R R

v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv Rv R R R R R R

v v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

Leung [2012] NSWSC 1451 ............................................ [EA.126B.300], [EA.90.270] Lewis (1987) 29 A Crim R 267; 88 FLR 104 ..................... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.240] Lewis [1998] NSWSC 408 ........................................................................ [EA.165.450] Lewis [2003] NSWCCA 180 .................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.190.120] Lewis (unreported, NSW CCA, 8 September 1998) ................................ [EA.165.450] Lewis (unreported, NSW SC, Dowd J, 25 October 1996) .......................... [EA.4.270] Li [1993] 2 VR 80 ........................................................................................ [EA.90.60] Li (2003) 140 A Crim R 288; [2003] NSWCCA 386 ...................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.141.90], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.450] Li [2003] NSWCCA 407 .......................................................................... [EA.101.360] Liddy (2002) 81 SASR 22 ........................................................................ [EA.165.480] Lieske (2006) 166 A Crim R 213; [2006] ACTSC 97 ....... [EA.85.180], [EA.85.240], [EA.90.270], [EA.138.450] Linehan [1921] VLR 582 .......................................................................... [EA.164.150] Liristis (2004) 146 A Crim R 547; [2004] NSWCCA 287 ...................... [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150] Lisoff [1999] NSWCCA 364 ..................................................................... [EA.137.150] Lister [1981] 1 NSWLR 110 ...................................................................... [EA.26.210] Livingstone (2004) 150 A Crim R 117; [2004] NSWCCA 407 .............. [EA.165.210] Lo Presti [1992] 1 VR 696 ......................................................................... [EA.27.150] Loader (2004) 89 SASR 204; 147 A Crim R 312; [2004] SASC 234 ...... [EA.55.90], [EA.165.480] Lock (1997) 91 A Crim R 356 .................... [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.270] Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457 ............................................................ [EA.101.150] Lodhi (2006) 163 A Crim R 475; [2006] NSWSC 586 .......................... [EA.130.390] Lodhi (2006) 163 A Crim R 526; [2006] NSWSC 648 ....... [EA.59.180], [EA.81.90], [EA.142.60] Lodhi (2006) 199 FLR 328; [2006] NSWSC 638 ................................... [EA.128.540] Lonie [1999] NSWCCA 319 ............................................ [EA.165.210], [EA.165.450] Lonie and Groom [1999] NSWCCA 319 ................................................. [EA.165.360] Lowe [1997] 2 VR 465 ............................................................................... [EA.90.270] Lowe (1997) 98 A Crim R 300 ................ [EA.165.300], [EA.165.420], [EA.165.450] Lozano (unreported, NSW CCA, Hunt CJ .......................... [EA.38.150], [EA.38.330], [EA.60.150], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.450], [EA.192.100] Lu [2007] NSWSC 1259 ........................................................................... [EA.131.360] Lucas [1992] 2 VR 109; (1991) 55 A Crim R 361 ................................... [EA.79.120] Lumsden [2003] NSWCCA 83 ................ [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.103.120], [EA.114.180], [EA.137.120] Ly (unreported, NSW CCA, 25 May 1994) ............................................. [EA.165.420] Lyberopoulos [2002] NSWCCA 280 .................................. [EA.Intro.350], [EA.89.90] Lynch [1999] NSWCCA 32 .......................................................................... [EA.55.60] M (unreported, NSW CCA, 19 August 1996) ....................................... [EA.165A.150] M, RB (2007) 172 A Crim R 73; [2007] SASC 207 ............................... [EA.141.120] MC [2009] VSCA 122 .............................................................................. [EA.165.480] MCC [2014] QCA 253 .............................................................................. [EA.165.480] MDB [2005] NSWCCA 354 .................... [EA.165B.270], [EA.108.150], [EA.192.80] MG (2006) 175 A Crim R 342; [2006] VSCA 264 .......... [EA.46.60], [EA.165B.240] MK (2012) 223 A Crim R 572; [2012] NSWCCA 110 ........................... [EA.137.150] ML [2009] VSCA 106 ...................................................... [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] MM (2000) 112 A Crim R 519 ........................................ [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] MM [2004] NSWCCA 364 ........................ [EA.55.390], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.510] MM [2014] NSWCCA 144 ...................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.137.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

lxx

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v MMJ (2006) 166 A Crim R 501; [2006] VSCA 226 .......... [EA.89.90], [EA.165.480] v MMK [2005] NSWCCA 273 ....................................................................... [EA.116.90] v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236 ........... [EA.98.60], [EA.98.90], [EA.98.120], [EA.98.150] v MRK [2005] NSWCCA 271 ....................................................................... [EA.141.90] v MSK and MAK [2004] NSWCCA 308 ....................................................... [EA.27.180] v MacDonald (1996) 84 A Crim R 508 ...................................................... [EA.165.480] v MacPherson [2006] 1 Cr App R 30 ............................................................. [EA.13.60] v Macarthur [2005] NSWCCA 65 .............................................................. [EA.128.690] v Macraild (unreported, NSW CCA, Sully, Dunford, Simpson JJ, 18 December 1997) ........................... [EA.59.180], [EA.60.60], [EA.87.120], [EA.135.90] v Macris (2004) 147 A Crim R 99; [2004] NSWCCA 261 ........................ [EA.20.180], [EA.89.150] v Madigan [2005] NSWCCA 170 .................. [EA.55.270], [EA.79.150], [EA.114.330], [EA.136.60], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.165.450] v Magoulias [2003] NSWCCA 143 ............................................................... [EA.144.60] v Maher [2005] ACTSC 41 ........................................................................... [EA.55.240] v Maklouf [1999] NSWCCA 94 .......................................... [EA.115.300], [EA.115.330] v Mallah (2005) 154 A Crim R 150; [2005] NSWSC 358 .......................... [EA.90.270] v Malouf (unreported, NSW CCA, Meagher JA, Studdert, Sully JJ, 1 November 1996) ................................................................. [EA.165.210], [EA.165.360] v Mankotia [1998] NSWSC 295 ...................... [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.210], [EA.65.330] v Manning [2014] QCA 49 ............................................................................ [EA.55.330] v Mansfield [1978] 1 All ER 134 ................................................................ [EA.101.150] v Mansour (unreported, NSW SC, Levine J, 19 November 1996) .............. [EA.38.270] v Mansour (unreported, NSW SC, Levine J, 26 November 1996) .............. [EA.20.150] v Manunta (1989) 54 SASR 17 ..................................................................... [EA.46.150] v Markuleski (2001) 125 A Crim R 186; 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290 ............................................................................................. [EA.165.480] v Marriott (unreported, WA CCA, Pidgeon, Rowland, Owen JJ, 15 November 1995) ......................................................................................... [EA.138.150] v Marsh [2000] NSWCCA 370 ................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.108.150] v Marsh [2005] NSWCCA 331 ...... [EA.55.270], [EA.76.90], [EA.78.60], [EA.79.150] v Marshall (2000) 113 A Crim R 190; [2000] NSWCCA 210 ..................... [EA.56.60], [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] v Martelli (1995) 83 A Crim R 550 ............................................................ [EA.138.150] v Martin [2006] VSCA 299 ......................................................................... [EA.165.480] v Martin (2007) 175 A Crim R 259 .............................................................. [EA.141.90] v Mason [2000] NSWCCA 82 ....................................................................... [EA.144.60] v Massey [2009] ACTCA 12 ........................................................................ [EA.114.150] v Matthews (unreported, NSW CCA, 28 May 1996) ............... [EA.89.90], [EA.89.150] v Matthews; R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 259 ....................................... [EA.101.360] v May (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 595 ................................................................ [EA.87.120] v Mayberry [2000] NSWCCA 531 ...................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] v Mayhew [2010] ACTSC 41 ...................................................................... [EA.128.540] v McBride [2008] QCA 412 ........................................................................ [EA.141.150] v McCarthy (1993) 71 A Crim R 395 ......................................................... [EA.114.150] v McCormack (No 3) [2003] NSWSC 645 ...... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150], [EA.135.150] v McDonald [2001] NSWCCA 363 ............................................................. [EA.114.240] v McDonald [2011] SASCFC 57 ................................................................. [EA.141.120] v McDowell [1997] 1 VR 473 ....................................................................... [EA.46.150] v McEndoo (1981) 5 A Crim R 52 ................................................................ [EA.80.150] v McGibbony [1956] VLR 424 ...................................................................... [EA.20.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxi

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v

McGoldrick [1998] NSWSC 121 ................................................................ [EA.97.450] McGovern (1991) 92 Cr App R 228 .......................................................... [EA.85.210] McKellar [2000] NSWCCA 523 ............................................................... [EA.115.150] McKenzie (unreported, NSW CCA, Wood CJ ......................................... [EA.165.480] McKeough [2003] NSWCCA 385 .............................................................. [EA.138.60] McLachlan [1999] 2 VR 553 ...................................................................... [EA.46.150] McLaughlan (2008) 218 FLR 158; [2008] ACTSC 49 ............................. [EA.85.210] McMahon (unreported, NSW CCA, 26 June 1996) ................................... [EA.189.40] McNamara (2002) 131 A Crim R 140; [2002] NSWCCA 248 ............. [EA.101.150], [EA.137.120], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] v McNamara (unreported, NSW CCA, 15 December 1995) ........................ [EA.46.150] v McNiven [2011] VSC 397 ........................................................................... [EA.85.210] v McSmith [2002] NSWCCA 68 .................................................................. [EA.101.150] v Mearns [2005] NSWCCA 396 ................. [EA.101.360], [EA.108.150], [EA.165.480] v Medcalfe [2002] ACTSC 83 ....................................................................... [EA.90.240] v Mendham (1993) 71 A Crim R 382 ......................................................... [EA.165.270] v Mendoza [2007] VSCA 120 ........................................................................ [EA.116.90] v Menzies [1982] 1 NZLR 40 ........................................................................ [EA.79.150] v Merlino [2004] NSWCCA 104 .................... [EA.89.90], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] v Merritt [1999] NSWCCA 29 .......................... [EA.55.60], [EA.137.60], [EA.141.120] v Michael Anthony Ryan (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1034 .............................. [EA.138.120] v Miladinovic (1994) 71 A Crim R 478 ...................................................... [EA.114.330] v Milat (unreported, NSW SC, 22 April 1996) ............................................. [EA.38.240] v Milat (unreported, NSW SC, 23 April 1996) ...................... [EA.20.150], [EA.38.270] v Miletic [1997] 1 VR 593 ........................................................................... [EA.165.480] v Miller (1980) 25 SASR 170 ..................................................................... [EA.115.150] v Miller [2004] 1 Qd R 548; [2003] QCA 404 .............................................. [EA.20.90] v Milton [2004] NSWCCA 195 .................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.450], [EA.165.210] v Mir [1989] Crim LR 894 .......................................................................... [EA.104.240] v Mirza [2004] 2 WLR 201 ............................................................................. [EA.9.120] v Mitchell [2007] QCA 267 ......................................................................... [EA.165.480] v Mitchell (unreported, NSW CCA, 5 April 1995) ..................................... [EA.165.480] v Moffatt (2000) 112 A Crim R 201; [2000] NSWCCA 174 ....................... [EA.85.210] v Mohammadi [2011] SASCFC 154 .............................................................. [EA.27.120] v Mora (unreported, Vic CCA, Phillips CJ, Southwell, Smith AJJA, 30 May 1996) ..................................................................................................... [EA.20.180] v Moran [1999] NSWCCA 92 ..................................................................... [EA.114.360] v Morgan [2009] VSCA 225 ........................................................................ [EA.116.120] v Morrow [2009] VSCA 291; 213 A Crim R 530 ........................................ [EA.46.150] v Moss (1990) 91 Cr App R 371 ................................................................... [EA.85.210] v Mrish (unreported, NSW SC, Hidden J, 15 August 1996) .......................... [EA.73.90] v Mrish (unreported, NSW SC, Hidden J, 4 October 1996) ........................ [EA.65.330] v Muca (unreported, SA CCA, Millhouse, Olsson, Williams JJ, 26 September 1996) ......................................................................................... [EA.165.450] v Muller [1996] 1 Qd R 74 ....................................................................... [EA.165A.150] v Muller (2013) 7 ACTLR 296; 273 FLR 215; [2013] ACTCA 15 ........... [EA.13.180], [EA.13.210] v Munce [2001] NSWSC 1072 ...................................................................... [EA.85.210] v Mundarra Smith (1999) 47 NSWLR 419 ............................ [EA.114.60], [EA.115.60] v Munday (No 1) [2016] VSC 26 .................................................................. [EA.85.210] v Murch [2014] SASCFC 61 ....................................................................... [EA.135.270] v Murphy (1985) 4 NSWLR 42 ..................................................................... [EA.110.60] v Murphy [2000] NSWCCA 297 ................................................................. [EA.165.330] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

lxxii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v

R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v

R R R R R

v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v

Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 ................................................................. [EA.165.480] NCT [2009] VSCA 240 ............................................................................... [EA.79.480] NJF (unreported, NSW CCA, 5 June 1997) ............................................ [EA.108.150] NKS [2004] NSWCCA 144 ...................................................................... [EA.101.150] NZ [2005] NSWCCA 278 ................................................. [EA.136.240], [EA.165.480] Naa [2009] NSWSC 851 ...................................................... [EA.85.150], [EA.139.60] Nabalarua (unreported, NSW CCA, 19 December 1997) ...................... [EA.138.240], [EA.138.420] Namie [2011] QCA 304 .............................................................................. [EA.116.90] Nassif [2004] NSWCCA 433 ..................... [EA.101.60], [EA.101.180], [EA.137.180] Naudi [1999] NSWCCA 259 ...................................................................... [EA.89.150] Navarolli [2010] Qd R 27; (2009) 194 A Crim R 96; [2009] QCA 49 .... [EA.55.180] Ncanana 1948 (4) SA 399 ........................................................................ [EA.165.360] Neda (unreported, NSW CCA, 9 December 1994) ..................................... [EA.46.90] Neilan [1992] 1 VR 57; (1991) 52 A Crim R 303 ................ [EA.53.60], [EA.141.90] Nelson [2004] NSWCCA 231 ....................... [EA.90.90], [EA.90.240], [EA.114.240], [EA.137.60] Nemeth [2002] NSWCCA 281 .................................................................. [EA.165.270] Newland (1997) 98 A Crim R 455 ............................................................. [EA.20.300] Ngatikaura (2006) 161 A Crim R 329; [2006] NSWCCA 161 .............. [EA.101.150] Ngo (2001) 122 A Crim R 467 ................................................................... [EA.102.90] Ngo (2003) 57 NSWLR 55; [2003] NSWCCA 82 ......... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.150], [EA.165.210] Nguyen (2000) 118 A Crim R 479; [2001] VSCA 1 ............................... [EA.165.480] Nguyen [2000] NSWCCA 285 ............................................ [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] Nguyen [2002] NSWCCA 342 .................... [EA.20.180], [EA.114.240], [EA.137.60], [EA.165.270] Nguyen [2003] NSWSC 1068 ........................................... [EA.114.240], [EA.115.300] Nguyen [2004] NSWCCA 16 .................................................................... [EA.165.450] Nguyen [2009] SASC 91 ............................................................................ [EA.55.180] Nguyen [2013] QCA 133 .......................................................................... [EA.165.480] Nguyen [2015] SASCFC 7 ............................................... [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570] Niass [2005] NSWCCA 120 ..................................................................... [EA.141.150] Nikau (unreported, NSW SC, 14 October 1997) ....................................... [EA.85.210] Nona [2015] ACTSC 175 ............................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.75.90] Noonan [2002] NSWCCA 150 ............................................. [EA.20.270], [EA.20.300] O’Brien [2003] NSWCCA 121 ................................................................. [EA.165.210] O’Connor [2003] NSWCCA 335 ....................................... [EA.65.300], [EA.135.270] O’Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397 ..................................................... [EA.115.150] O’Donohue [2001] NSWCCA 458 ............................................................. [EA.55.180] O’Driscoll (2003) 53 ATR 740; [2003] NSWCCA 166 ............................ [EA.43.210] OGD (No 2) (2000) 50 NSWLR 433; [2000] NSWCCA 404 ............... [EA.101.120], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.240], [EA.110.90] OM [2011] NSWCCA 109 ....................................................................... [EA.192A.40] O’Meally [1952] VLR 499 ......................................................................... [EA.65.120] O’Meally (No 2) [1953] VLR 30 ............................................................. [EA.101.150] ON [2009] QCA 62 ................................................................................... [EA.165.480] OP [2011] QCA 323 ................................................................................. [EA.165.450] O’Sullivan (1975) 13 SASR 68 .................................................................. [EA.184.20] Olasiuk (1973) 6 SASR 255 ....................................................................... [EA.27.120] Omar (1991) 58 A Crim R 139 ................................................................ [EA.114.330] Ong (2001) 80 SASR 537; [2001] SASC 437 ......................................... [EA.165.480] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxiii

Table of Cases

R v Ong (2007) 176 A Crim R 366; [2007] VSCA 206 ......... [EA.116.90], [EA.116.150], [EA.165.450] R v Orchard [2013] NSWCCA 342 .................................................................. [EA.46.120] R v Ortega-Farfan (2011) 215 A Crim R 251; [2011] QCA 364 ................... [EA.55.330], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.150] R v Orton [1922] VLR 469 ............................................................................... [EA.45.150] R v Osman [1998] NSWSC 13 .......................................................................... [EA.97.450] R v Ostojic (1978) 18 SASR 188 ...................................................................... [EA.90.240] R v Owen (1991) 56 SASR 397 ...................................................................... [EA.141.120] R v O’Driscoll [2003] NSWCCA 166 .............................................................. [EA.106.90] R v O’Keefe [2000] 1 Qd R 564 ..................................................................... [EA.101.210] R v P (2001) 53 NSWLR 664; [2001] NSWCA 473 .................. [EA.9.180], [EA.79.240], [EA.118.210], [EA.121.150] R v PAH (unreported, NSW CCA, 18 December 1998) ........ [EA.141.150], [EA.165.480] R v PJ [2006] ACTSC 37 ................................................................................ [EA.138.120] R v PKS (unreported, NSW CCA, 1 October 1998) ........................................ [EA.110.90] R v PKW [2016] SASCFC 5 ......................................................................... [EA.165B.210] R v PLV (2001) 51 NSWLR 736 .................... [EA.106.240], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] R v PMT (2003) 8 VR 50; [2003] VSCA 200 ................................................ [EA.165.480] R v PWD (2010) 205 A Crim R 75; [2010] NSWCCA 209 .... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180] R v Paek [1999] NSWCCA 184 ............................................. [EA.165.210], [EA.165.480] R v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191 ...................................................................... [EA.141.90] R v Panetta (1997) 26 MVR 332 ................................................... [EA.55.60], [EA.78.60] R v Pantoja (1998) 88 A Crim R 554 ............................................................... [EA.79.480] R v Pantoja (No 1) (unreported, NSW SC, 30 October 1996) ........................ [EA.38.270] R v Papakosmas (unreported, NSW CCA, 10 December 1997) ........................ [EA.66.60] R v Papamitrou (2004) 7 VR 375; [2004] VSCA 12 ....................................... [EA.98.120] R v Paris, Abdullahi & Miller (1992) 97 Cr App R 99 ..................................... [EA.84.60] R v Parker (1989) 19 NSWLR 177 .................................................................. [EA.90.240] R v Parkes (2003) 147 A Crim R 450; [2003] NSWCCA 12 ...... [EA.29.90], [EA.38.60], [EA.38.270], [EA.66.60] R v Parsons [2015] SASCFC 183 .......................................... [EA.104.120], [EA.165.450] R v Pathare [1981] 1 NSWLR 124 ................................................................... [EA.27.150] R v Patsalis (No 3) [1999] NSWSC 718 .................................. [EA.139.30], [EA.139.180] R v Patsalis and Spathis (No 4) [1999] NSWSC 715 .................................... [EA.101.150] R v Patterson [2001] NSWCCA 316 .............................................................. [EA.135.150] R v Pearce [2001] NSWCCA 447 .............................................. [EA.50.30], [EA.139.120] R v Pearsall (1990) 49 A Crim R 439 ...................................... [EA.90.300], [EA.114.240] R v Penny (1997) 91 A Crim R 288 ............................................................... [EA.114.240] R v Perera [1986] 1 Qd R 211 ........................................................................ [EA.165.480] R v Perrier (No 1) [1991] 1 VR 697 ................................................................ [EA.110.90] R v Perry (1990) 49 A Crim R 243 .................................................................. [EA.79.240] R v Perry (No 4) (1982) 28 SASR 119 .............................................................. [EA.76.90] R v Peters (1996) 88 A Crim R 585 ............................................................... [EA.138.150] R v Petroulias (No 22) (2007) 213 FLR 293; 176 A Crim R 309; [2007] NSWSC 692 .................................................................................................. [EA.117.90] R v Pfennig (No 1) (1992) 57 SASR 507 ......................................................... [EA.90.270] R v Pfitzner (unreported, SA CCA, Doyle CJ, Matheson, Millhouse JJ, 20 February 1996) ............................................................................................ [EA.165.330] R v Phair [1986] 1 Qd R 136 ........................................................................... [EA.39.120] R v Pham [2004] NSWCCA 190 ...................................................................... [EA.137.60] R v Phan (2001) 53 NSWLR 480; 123 A Crim R 30 ................. [EA.90.90], [EA.90.210] R v Phan [2003] NSWCCA 205 ..................................................................... [EA.138.570] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxxiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R v Phillips [2015] SASCFC 67 ..................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Phong Hoang Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; 234 A Crim R 520; [2013] SASCFC 91 ............................................................ [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570] R v Phung and Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115 ................................................... [EA.138.270] R v Pimentel (1999) 110 A Crim R 30; [1999] NSWCCA 401 ..................... [EA.138.150] R v Pirrottina (1996) 88 A Crim R 220 ........................................................... [EA.189.40] R v Pirrottina (unreported, NSW SC, 20 March 1997) ................................... [EA.29.180] R v Pitts (No 1) [2012] NSWSC 1652 ......................................... [EA.90.60], [EA.90.210] R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123 ................................................................... [EA.101.150] R v Plevac (1995) 84 A Crim R 570 .......................................... [EA.81.240], [EA.90.210] R v Plevac [1999] NSWCCA 351 ................................................................... [EA.141.120] R v Polkinghorne (1999) 108 A Crim R 189 ..... [EA.66A.60], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.210] R v Pollitt (1990) 51 A Crim R 227 ............................................................... [EA.165.330] R v Popovic (unreported, NSW CCA, 25 March 1996) ................................... [EA.184.20] R v Porter (2003) 85 SASR 581; 138 A Crim R 581; [2003] SASC 233 ...... [EA.20.180] R v Powell [2006] 1 Cr App R 31 .................................................................... [EA.13.240] R v Power (1996) 87 A Crim R 407 ................................................................. [EA.55.330] R v Praturlon (unreported, NSW CCA, No 330 of 1984, 29 November 1985) .............................................................................................................. [EA.41.300] R v Preston [2013] SASCFC 69 ...................................................................... [EA.114.240] R v Preston (unreported, NSW CCA, Handley JA, Smart, Preston JJ, 9 April 1997) .................................................................................................... [EA.59.180] R v Pretorius [2007] QCA 432 .......................................................................... [EA.116.90] R v Priest (2011) 209 A Crim R 254; [2011] ACTSC 18 .............................. [EA.138.120] R v Quach (2002) 137 A Crim R 345; [2002] NSWCCA 519 ....................... [EA.90.210], [EA.101.150] R v Quesada (2001) 122 A Crim R 218 ........................................................... [EA.79.120] R v RAG [2006] NSWCCA 343 .................................................. [EA.13.210], [EA.13.300] R v RFC (2000) 116 A Crim R 280 ................................................................ [EA.165.450] R v RJC (unreported, NSW CCA, 1 October 1998) ......................................... [EA.60.150] R v RJC (unreported, NSW CCA, 18 August 1998) ........................................ [EA.110.60] R v RN [2005] NSWCCA 413 ......................................................................... [EA.101.180] R v RNS [1999] NSWCCA 122 ......................................................................... [EA.66.180] R v RPS (unreported, NSW CCA, No 60583 of 1996, 13 August 1997) ....... [EA.26.150], [EA.60.60], [EA.103.60], [EA.108.150] R v RTB [2002] NSWCCA 104 ............................ [EA.55.270], [EA.55.570], [EA.192.80] R v Radford (1993) 66 A Crim R 210 .............................................................. [EA.116.90] R v Rae [2008] QCA 385 ................................................................................ [EA.141.120] R v Rahme [2001] NSWCCA 414 ........................ [EA.81.60], [EA.83.60], [EA.Intro.340] R v Rajakaruna (2004) 146 A Crim R 238; [2004] VSCA 114 .................... [EA.101.150] R v Rajakaruna (No 2) (2006) 168 A Crim R 1; [2006] VSCA 277 ............. [EA.46.150], [EA.141.120] R v Ray [2003] NSWCCA 227 ........................................................................ [EA.165.480] R v Razzak [2004] NSWCCA 62 ...................... [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90], [EA.116.120] R v Reardon (2002) 186 FLR 1; [2002] NSWCCA 203 ........ [EA.38.270], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.450], [EA.192.80] R v Reed (David) [2009] EWCA Crim 2698 .................................................... [EA.79.120] R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109 ........................ [EA.89.90], [EA.89.150], [EA.141.90] R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258 ..................................................................... [EA.Intro.350] R v Renzella (1996) 88 A Crim R 65 ..................................... [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] R v Reynolds [2013] QCA 338 ........................................................................ [EA.141.120] R v Reynolds [2015] QCA 111 ........................................................................ [EA.165.480] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxv

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v Rhodes (1999) 104 A Crim R 572 ............................................................ [EA.165.450] v Rich (1998) 102 A Crim R 165 .......................................... [EA.41.300], [EA.101.150] v Richards (2001) 123 A Crim R 14 ............... [EA.11.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.138.150] v Richards (2002) 128 A Crim R 204; [2002] NSWCCA 38 ...................... [EA.20.180] v Richards (unreported, NSW CCA, Grove, James, Simpson JJ, 3 April 1998) ............................................................................................................ [EA.165.480] v Richardson [1969] 1 QB 299; [1968] 2 All ER 761 ............................... [EA.103.120] v Ridsdale [2009] QCA 188 ........................................................................ [EA.165.480] v Rinaldi (1993) 30 NSWLR 605 .................................................................... [EA.9.120] v Riscuta [2003] NSWCCA 6 ....................... [EA.55.180], [EA.114.330], [EA.116.150] v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284; 184 FLR 365; [2004] NSWCCA 7 .... [EA.101A.90], [EA.101A.120], [EA.102.90], [EA.106.240] v Roberts [2011] SASCFC 117 ........................................................................ [EA.89.90] v Robertson (1997) 91 A Crim R 388 ......................................................... [EA.101.240] v Robinson [1977] Qd R 3877 ....................................................................... [EA.46.150] v Robinson (1995) 80 A Crim R 358 ....................................................... [EA.165A.150] v Robinson [1999] NSWCCA 172 ................................................................. [EA.110.60] v Rockford [2015] SASCFC 51 ................................................................... [EA.138.540] v Roddom [2001] NSWCCA 168 ..................................... [EA.165B.270], [EA.165.210] v Rodley [1913] 3 KB 468 ............................................................................. [EA.136.60] v Rodriguez [1998] 2 VR 167 ..................................................................... [EA.141.150] v Roisetter [1984] 1 Qd R 477 .................................................................... [EA.165.450] v Romeo (1982) 30 SASR 243 ...................................................................... [EA.46.150] v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540 ..................................................................... [EA.69.240] v Ronen [2004] NSWCCA 67 ........................................................................ [EA.187.20] v Rooke (unreported, NSW CCA, Newman, Levine, Barr JJ, 2 September 1997) .................... [EA.85.210], [EA.138.60], [EA.138.240], [EA.189.140] v Rose (2002) 55 NSWLR 701; [2002] NSWCCA 455 ........ [EA.59.120], [EA.59.180], [EA.101.150], [EA.114.90], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.300], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.510] v Rose (No 10) [2001] NSWSC 1060 ................................. [EA.165.300], [EA.165.450] v Rostom [2007] SASC 210 ............................................................................. [EA.30.60] v Rudd (2009) 23 VR 444; [2009] VSCA 213 .................... [EA.81.240], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] v Runjanjic (1991) 56 SASR 114; 53 A Crim R 362 ............ [EA.79.120], [EA.80.150] v Rustum [2005] VSCA 142 .................................................... [EA.81.60], [EA.165.480] v Rutherford [2004] QCA 481 ..................................................................... [EA.165.450] v Ryan (2013) 33 NTLR 123; 234 A Crim R 299; [2013] NTSC 54 ......... [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180] v Ryan [2013] NSWCCA 316 ........................................................................ [EA.90.270] v Ryan (No 7) [2012] NSWSC 1160 ............................................................. [EA.103.90] v Rymer (2005) 156 A Crim R 84; [2005] NSWCCA 310 .................... [EA.101A.180], [EA.66.60], [EA.81.270] v S [2003] NSWCCA 122 ..................................... [EA.37.60], [EA.44.90], [EA.44.120] v S (unreported, NSW CCA, 18 December 1997) ............... [EA.164.90], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.480] v SBB (2007) 175 A Crim R 449 ................................................................ [EA.165.480] v SBL [2009] QCA 130 ................................................................................ [EA.165.480] v SCG (2014) 241 A Crim R 508; [2014] QCA 118 .................................. [EA.165.480] v SH [2011] ACTSC 198 ..................................... [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.38.300] v SJF [2002] NSWCCA 294 ........................................................................ [EA.165.210] v SJRC [2007] NSWCCA 142 ............................................... [EA.137.60], [EA.137.210] v SK [2011] NSWCCA 292 ................................................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

lxxvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v

R R R R R R

v v v v v v

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv R R R R

v v v v

R R R R R R

v v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv Rv

ST (1997) 92 A Crim R 390 ......................................................................... [EA.81.60] SWC (2007) 175 A Crim R 71; [2007] VSCA 201 ............. [EA.41.300], [EA.46.150] SY [2004] NSWCCA 297 ........................... [EA.27.120], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] Sabbah [2004] NSWCCA 28 ...................................................................... [EA.20.180] Sadler [2008] VSCA 198 .......................................................................... [EA.141.120] Salahattin [1983] 1 VR 521 ......................................................................... [EA.89.90] Salama [1999] NSWCCA 105 ................... [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.450] Salami [2013] NSWCCA 96 ....................................................................... [EA.55.360] Salem (1997) 96 A Crim R 421 ................ [EA.138.60], [EA.138.150], [EA.138.240], [EA.138.420], [EA.138.690] Salih (2005) 160 A Crim R 310; [2005] VSCA 282 ............................... [EA.165.450] Salindera (unreported, NSW CCA, 25 October 1996) .............................. [EA.85.210] Saltan [2002] NSWCCA 423 .................................................................... [EA.165.360] Sarbandi [2012] ACTSC 180 ............................................................. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Sarlija [2009] ACTSC 127 ............................................... [EA.114.150], [EA.115.150] Schaeffer (2005) 159 A Crim R 101; [2005] VSCA 306 ....................... [EA.138.300], [EA.165.480] Schell [2013] QCA 113 ............................................................................. [EA.165.480] Schiavini (1999) 108 A Crim R 161; [1999] NSWCCA 165 .................... [EA.86.120] Schneidas (No 2) (1981) 4 A Crim R 101 ................................................. [EA.46.150] Schuurs [1999] QSC 176 ............................................................................ [EA.90.300] Schweizer [2007] VSCA 157 .................................................................... [EA.165.480] Sciberras [2001] NSWCCA 514 .............................................................. [EA.165.480] Scott (2002) 112 A Crim R 543; [2000] NSWCCA 187 ........................... [EA.20.300] Scott [2004] NSWCCA 254 ................................................. [EA.41.300], [EA.46.150] Seller [2015] NSWCCA 76 ........................ [EA.117.90], [EA.118.600], [EA.122.150] Selsby [2004] NSWCCA 381 ............................................. [EA.108.120], [EA.192.80] Serratore (1999) 48 NSWLR 101 ...................................... [EA.65.150], [EA.141.120] Serratore [2001] NSWCCA 123 ............................................................... [EA.101.150] Shamouil (2006) 66 NSWLR 228; [2006] NSWCCA 112 ....................... [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120], [EA.137.90] Sharma [2009] ACTSC 154 ........................................................................ [EA.66.210] Sharp [1988] 1 WLR 7; 1 All ER 65 .................................. [EA.65.240], [EA.81.240] Sharp (2003) 143 A Crim R 344; [2003] NSWSC 1117 .......................... [EA.90.150], [EA.117.120] Shea (1978) 18 SASR 591 .......................................................................... [EA.44.150] Shephard [1993] AC 380 ............................................................................ [EA.79.150] Sibraa [2012] NSWCCA 19 ..................................................................... [EA.138.570] Sievers (2004) 151 A Crim R 426; [2004] NSWCCA 463 .... [EA.55.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.165.480] Simmons (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 143 .......................................................... [EA.90.60] Simmons (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 189 .................................. [EA.90.270], [EA.142.60] Simmons (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 259 ........................................................ [EA.137.60] Simmons (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 418 ...................................................... [EA.128.540] Simpson [2008] QCA 77 ........................................................................... [EA.165.360] Sing (2002) 54 NSWLR 31; [2002] NSWCCA 20 .......... [EA.79.300], [EA.135.150], [EA.137.120] Singh (1977) 15 SASR 591 ........................................................................ [EA.32.150] Singh-Bal (1997) 92 A Crim R 397 ................ [EA.60.60], [EA.88.60], [EA.135.180], [EA.137.150] Sio [2013] NSWSC 1412 ............................................................................ [EA.65.240] Siulai [2004] NSWCCA 152 ............................................. [EA.108A.90], [EA.137.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxvii

Table of Cases

R v Skaf (2004) 60 NSWLR 86; [2004] NSWCCA 37 .............. [EA.53.180], [EA.89.90], [EA.114.240] R v Skaf [2004] NSWCCA 74 ............................. [EA.55.270], [EA.110.90], [EA.115.300] R v Slack (2003) 139 A Crim R 314; [2003] NSWCCA 93 ..... [EA.55.150], [EA.103.60], [EA.190.120], [EA.Intro.350] R v Slattery [2002] NSWCCA 367 ................................................................. [EA.165.480] R v Sleiman [2003] NSWCCA 231 ......................................... [EA.108.120], [EA.108.150] R v Sluczanowski [2008] SASC 185 ............................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Small (1994) 33 NSWLR 575 .......................................... [EA.165.240], [EA.165.420] R v Smart [2010] VSCA 33 ...................................................... [EA.46.150], [EA.165.480] R v Smit [2004] NSWCCA 409 ....................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Smith [1981] 1 NSWLR 193 ................................................ [EA.184.20], [EA.191.20] R v Smith (1987) 7 NSWLR 444; 23 A Crim R 266 ..................................... [EA.114.330] R v Smith (1992) 58 SASR 491 ........................................................................ [EA.90.240] R v Smith (1999) 47 NSWLR 419 ................................................ [EA.76.90], [EA.114.90] R v Smith (2000) 116 A Crim R 1 ..................... [EA.79.300], [EA.80.150], [EA.135.210], [EA.135.270] R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 468 ............................................ [EA.114.240], [EA.165.480] R v Smith [2008] NSWCCA 247 ....................................................................... [EA.97.120] R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299; 196 ALR 421; [2003] HCA 13 ............... [EA.Intro.120], [EA.9.90], [EA.43.210], [EA.106.90] R v Sood [2007] NSWCCA 214 ............................................... [EA.137.90], [EA.137.120] R v Sood (No 3) [2006] NSWSC 762 ............................................................ [EA.108A.60] R v Soto-Sanchez (2002) 129 A Crim R 279 .................................................... [EA.110.60] R v Souleyman (1996) 40 NSWLR 712 ....................................... [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150] R v Souleyman (unreported, NSW SC, Levine J, 5 September 1996) ........... [EA.106.240] R v Souleyman (unreported, NSW SC, Smart J, 13 May 1996) .................... [EA.165.390] R v Southammavong [2003] NSWCCA 312 ..................................................... [EA.141.90] R v Southon (2003) 85 SASR 436; 139 A Crim R 250 ................................. [EA.115.300] R v Spathis [2001] NSWCCA 476 .................................................. [EA.38.60], [EA.81.60] R v Spedding (unreported, NSW CCA, Gleeson, Sully, Abadee, 11 December 1997) .......................................................................................... [EA.165.210] R v Spencer [1987] AC 128 ............................................................................ [EA.165.360] R v Spero (2006) 161 A Crim R 13; [2006] VSCA 58 .................................... [EA.116.90] R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321 ................................................................... [EA.106.270] R v Stackelroth (unreported, NSW CCA, Gleeson CJ, Powell JA, Smart J, 9 April 1997) ............................................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Stalder [1981] 2 NSWLR 9 ........................................................................ [EA.110.90] R v Stanley [2004] NSWCCA 278 ............................................ [EA.114.240], [EA.116.90] R v Stanton (unreported, NSW CCA, 24 July 1998) ............. [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270] R v Starrett (2002) 82 SASR 115; [2002] SASC 175 ...................................... [EA.13.210] R v Statham (unreported, Qld CA, 28 April 1994) .......................................... [EA.46.150] R v Stavrinos [2003] NSWCCA 33 9 ................................................................. [EA.89.90] R v Steeden (unreported, NSW CCA, 19 August 1994 .................................. [EA.165.480] R v Stevens [2001] NSWCCA 330 .................................................................... [EA.192.80] R v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301; 124 A Crim R 371; [2001] NSWCCA 260 ....................... [EA.55.150], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.360], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] R v Strawhorn [2008] VSCA 101 ................................................................... [EA.165.480] R v Stubbs [2009] ACTSC 63 ......................................................................... [EA.138.120] R v Suckling [1999] NSWCCA 36 .............................................. [EA.90.60], [EA.101.150] R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54 ..................................................................... [EA.101.150] R v Sullivan [2002] NSWCCA 505 .......................................... [EA.55.360], [EA.101.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxxviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v

Sullivan [2003] NSWCCA 100 .................. [EA.55.150], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.360] Sultana (1994) 74 A Crim R 27 ............................................................... [EA.165.420] Sumner [1935] VLR 197 .......................................................................... [EA.164.150] Sumner [2001] SASC 261 ........................................................................ [EA.165.360] Sumpton [2014] NSWSC 1432 ......................... [EA.84.60], [EA.84.150], [EA.90.60], [EA.138.390] v Suteski (2002) 128 A Crim R 275; [2002] NSWSC 218 ................. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.65.120] v Suteski (2002) 56 NSWLR 182; 137 A Crim R 371; [2002] NSWCCA 509 .............................................. [EA.65.240], [EA.135.150], [EA.165.210] v Swaffıeld (1998) 192 CLR 159; 72 ALJR 339 ....................... [EA.11.90], [EA.90.60], [EA.90.180], [EA.90.270], [EA.137.60], [EA.138.300] v Syed [2008] NSWCCA 37 ........................................................................ [EA.138.690] v Szabo [2000] NSWCCA 226 ...................................................................... [EA.110.60] v Szach (1980) 23 SASR 504 ........................................................................ [EA.39.120] v T [2010] EWCA Crim 2439 ....................................................................... [EA.79.120] v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; 238 A Crim R 205; [2014] SASCFC 3 .... [EA.27.120] v TA (2003) 57 NSWLR 444; 139 A Crim R 30; [2003] NSWCCA 191 .... [EA.41.150], [EA.78.60] v TAB [2002] NSWCCA 274 ...................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] v TJF [2001] NSWCCA 127 ....................... [EA.165.210], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.450] v TKWJ [2000] NSWCCA 246 .............................................. [EA.101.150], [EA.110.90] v TR (2004) 180 FLR 424; [2004] ACTSC 10 .......................................... [EA.192A.60] v Tahere [1999] NSWCCA 170 ............................................. [EA.114.90], [EA.114.180] v Tamotsu (1999) 109 A Crim R 193; [1999] NSWCCA 400 ...................... [EA.98.60], [EA.101.120] v Tang [2003] NSWCCA 357 ........................................................................ [EA.55.180] v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681; 161 A Crim R 377; [2006] NSWCCA 167 ........................................................................................... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.180] v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545 ...................................... [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] v Tanner [2001] WASCA 60 ............................................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] v Taouk (2005) 154 A Crim R 69; [2005] NSWCCA 155 ..... [EA.90.90], [EA.138.300] v Taousanis [2001] NSWSC 74 ............................................. [EA.59.180], [EA.114.240] v Taranto [1999] NSWCCA 396 ................... [EA.137.120], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240] v Tartaglia [2011] SASCFC 88 ................................................................... [EA.141.120] v Taufua [1999] NSWCCA 205 ..................................................................... [EA.20.300] v Taufua (unreported, NSW CCA, 11 November 1996) ........ [EA.114.60], [EA.114.90], [EA.114.180], [EA.115.60] v Taylor [1999] ACTSC 47 ............................. [EA.85.210], [EA.90.260], [EA.139.150] v Taylor [2003] NSWCCA 194 ........................ [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.135.210], [EA.135.270] v Taylor [2008] ACTSC 52 .......................................................................... [EA.114.180] v Taylor (unreported, NSW CCA, 28 March 1995) ...................................... [EA.189.40] v Taylor (No 2) (2008) 184 A Crim R 77; [2008] VSCA 57 .................. [EA.165B.270] v Telfer (2004) 142 A Crim R 132; [2004] NSWCCA 27 ............................ [EA.110.60] v Teys (2001) 161 FLR 44; 119 A Crim R 398; [2001] ACTSC 29 ........... [EA.98.180], [EA.101.180] v Theophanous (2003) 141 A Crim R 2; [2003] VSCA 78 ............................ [EA.10.60] v Theos (1996) 89 A Crim R 486 ....................................... [EA.165.300], [EA.165.450] v Thomas [2015] SASCFC 55 ..................................................................... [EA.165.480] v Thomason (1999) 139 ACTR 21 ................ [EA.114.90], [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240] v Thompson (2000) 130 A Crim R 24; [2002] NSWCCA 149 .................... [EA.27.120] v Thompson [2008] VSCA 144 ...................................................................... [EA.46.150] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxix

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v

Rv Rv Rv Rv R R R R R R

v v v v v v

R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v

Rv R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v v v v v v v v v v

R R R R R R

v v v v v v

Thornton (1980) 3 A Crim R 80 ................................................................ [EA.20.150] Tillman [1999] NSWCCA 164 .................................................................. [EA.165.450] Tillott (1991) 53 A Crim R 46 .................................................................. [EA.141.120] Tillott (1995) 38 NSWLR 1 ............................................... [EA.137.60], [EA.165.450] Tirado (1974) 59 Cr App R 80 ............................................ [EA.48.210], [EA.69.120] To (2002) 131 A Crim R 264; [2002] NSWCCA 247 ..... [EA.114.210], [EA.114.240] Toai Siulai [2004] NSWCCA 152 ........................................................... [EA.108A.60] Tofilau (2006) 160 A Crim R 549; [2006] VSCA 40 .............................. [EA.165.270] Toki (2000) 116 A Crim R 536 ................... [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] Tolmie [2004] NSWCCA 396 ................................................................... [EA.165.480] Ton (2002) 132 A Crim R 340; [2002] NSWCCA 337 .......................... [EA.165.390], [EA.165.450] Tonkin [1975] Qd R 1 ................................................................................... [EA.80.90] Too (unreported, NSW SC, Badgery-Parker J, 26 July 1996) .................... [EA.11.60], [EA.26.60], [EA.26.120] Tran [1997] QCA 170 ................................................................................. [EA.116.90] Tran (2006) 96 SASR 8; 164 A Crim R 541; [2006] SASC 276 ............. [EA.20.210] Tran & Tran 109 SASR 595; [2011] SASCFC 51 .................................. [EA.141.150] Trimboli (1979) 21 SASR 577 .................................................................... [EA.110.60] Trochym [2007] 1 SCR 239 .................................................. [EA.79.120], [EA.79.300] Truong (1996) 86 A Crim R 188 .................... [EA.84.60], [EA.85.150], [EA.85.180], [EA.139.90] Tugaga (1994) 74 A Crim R 190 ............................................................. [EA.114.240] Turnbull [1958] Tas SR 89 ........................................................................... [EA.10.60] Ugochukwu (2003) 138 A Crim R 544; [2003] NSWCCA 104 .................. [EA.81.60] Uhrig (unreported, NSW CCA, Hunt CJ ................................................. [EA.165.480] Ul-Haque (2007) 177 A Crim R 348; [2007] NSWSC 1251 ...................... [EA.84.60] Umanski [1961] VR 242 ........................................................................... [EA.104.120] Ung (2000) 112 A Crim R 344; 173 ALR 287; [2000] NSWCCA 195 ....................... [EA.Intro.120], [EA.59.180] V (1998) 100 A Crim R 488 ................... [EA.165.180], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480], [EA.165.540] VAS (2006) 170 A Crim R 452; [2006] VSCA 159 ................................. [EA.101.360] Vaitaiki (unreported, NSW CCA, 6 October 1993) ................................... [EA.55.180] Van Beelen (1972) 6 SASR 534 ........................................... [EA.32.150], [EA.44.150] Van Dyk [2000] NSWCCA 67 .............................................. [EA.78.60], [EA.101.360] Vaughan (1997) 98 A Crim R 239 ............................................................. [EA.20.180] Vaughan (No 2) (2009) 105 SASR 532; [2009] SASC 395 ...................... [EA.55.600] Vawdrey (1998) 100 A Crim R 488 ....................................................... [EA.101A.120] Veitch [1999] NSWCCA 185 .................................................................... [EA.101.360] Velevski (No 2) (1997) 93 A Crim R 420 .................................................. [EA.38.150] Vergin (No 2) [2013] NSWDC 215 ........................................ [EA.90.60], [EA.90.270] Villalon [2014] NSWSC 725 .................................................. [EA.55.330], [EA.97.60] Villar [2004] NSWCCA 302 ....................................................................... [EA.20.150] Vincent (2002) 133 A Crim R 206; [2002] NSWCCA 369 ........................ [EA.62.60], [EA.142.60], [EA.165.240] Von Rijssen (1995) 77 A Crim R 566 ........................................................ [EA.46.150] Vu [2005] NSWCCA 266 ................................................. [EA.165.240], [EA.165.450] Vu Ngoc Pham [2004] NSWCCA 190 ..................................................... [EA.102.120] W, PKW [2016] SASCFC 5 ................................................................... [EA.165B.210] WAA [2008] QCA 87 ................................................................................ [EA.165.480] WAC [2008] QCA 151 .............................................................................. [EA.165.480] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

lxxx

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

v v v v

WB [2009] VSCA 173 .............................................................................. [EA.165.450] WG [2010] VSCA 34 .................................................................................. [EA.141.90] WO [2006] QCA 21 .................................................................................. [EA.101.360] WRC (2002) 130 A Crim R 89; [2002] NSWCCA 210 ......................... [EA.101.120], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.210], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.360] v WRW [2001] NSWCCA 466 ..................................................................... [EA.165.480] v WSP [2005] NSWCCA 427 ................................................................... [EA.165B.210] v Walbank (1995) 79 A Crim R 180 ............................................................. [EA.189.40] v Walker [1998] Crim LR 211 ....................................................................... [EA.85.210] v Walker [2000] NSWCCA 130 .......................... [EA.85.210], [EA.90.90], [EA.90.270] v Walters [2002] NSWCCA 291 ......................................... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] v Wanganeen (2006) 95 SASR 226; [2006] SASC 254 ............................... [EA.141.90] v Warren (1994) 72 A Crim R 83 ............................................................. [EA.165A.150] v Waters (2002) 129 A Crim R 115; [2002] ACTSC 13 ........ [EA.85.210], [EA.85.300] v Watkins (2005) 153 A Crim R 434; [2005] NSWCCA 164 ..................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180] v Watt [2000] NSWCCA 37 ........................................................................... [EA.87.120] v Weaven (No 1) [2011] VSC 442 ............................................................... [EA.138.390] v Weetra [2010] SASCFC 52 ....................................................................... [EA.165.480] v Weiss (2004) 8 VR 388 ............................................................................. [EA.165.480] v Welsh (1996) 90 A Crim R 364 .............................................. [EA.59.180], [EA.60.60] v Werry [2009] VSCA 94 ............................................................................. [EA.141.120] v Whalen [2003] NSWCCA 59 .................................................................... [EA.165.300] v Wheeler [2004] SASC 397 ............................................... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] v Wheeler (unreported, NSW CCA, 16 November 1989) ............................ [EA.110.90] v White [1969] VR 203 .................................................................................. [EA.110.90] v White [2003] NSWCCA 64 .................................................... [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150] v White (2008) 102 SASR 35; [2008] SASC 265 ........................................ [EA.116.90] v Whitmore (1999) 109 A Crim R 51 ................................... [EA.66.180], [EA.108.150] v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75 ............................. [EA.77.60], [EA.78.60], [EA.136.150] v Wilkie [2008] NSWSC 885 ......................................................................... [EA.123.60] v Williams (1999) 104 A Crim R 260; [1999] NSWCCA 9 ...................... [EA.141.150], [EA.165.480], [EA.165.540] v Williams (2000) 119 A Crim R 490 .......... [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150], [EA.165.360] v Willis [2001] WASCA 296 .......................................................................... [EA.81.240] v Willoughby [2000] NSWSC 751 ................................................................. [EA.100.60] v Wills (1985) 39 SASR 35; 16 A Crim R 247 ............................................ [EA.13.210] v Wilson (2005) 62 NSWLR 346; [2005] NSWCCA 20 .... [EA.20.180], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270] v Winters [2010] SASC 100 ........................................................................... [EA.116.90] v Wolter [2015] ACTSC 269 ......................................................................... [EA.97.450] v Wood (1996) 87 A Crim R 346 .................................................................. [EA.20.180] v Woods [2008] SASC 335 .................................................. [EA.141.120], [EA.141.150] v Workman [2004] NSWCCA 213 ............................................................... [EA.138.120] v Wright (2004) 149 A Crim R 298; [2004] ACTSC 83 ................................ [EA.19.30] v Wu (unreported, NSW CCA, Grove, Levine, Barr JJ, 12 November 1998) ................................................................................................................ [EA.84.60] v XY (2010) 79 NSWLR 629; [2010] NSWCCA 181 .................................. [EA.66.180] v XY (2013) 84 NSWLR 363; 231 A Crim R 474; [2013] NSWCCA 121 ................................................................ [EA.Intro.300], [EA.90.270], [EA.137.90] v YL (2004) 187 FLR 84; [2004] ACTSC 115 ............................................... [EA.19.30] [All references are to paragraph numbers]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxi

Table of Cases

R v Yammine (2002) 132 A Crim R 44; [2002] NSWCCA 289 ..................... [EA.20.150], [EA.55.150], [EA.165.330] R v Yates [2002] NSWCCA 520 ..................... [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150], [EA.165.210] R v Ye Zhang [2000] NSWSC 1099 ............................................. [EA.84.60], [EA.85.210] R v Yi [1998] NSWSC 39 .................................................................................. [EA.38.150] R v Yilditz (1983) 11 A Crim R 115 .................................................................. [EA.79.150] R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681 ............ [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.440], [NSW.CP.480] R v Yuille [1948] VLR 41 .................................................................................. [EA.136.60] R v Zaiter [2004] NSWCCA 35 ...................................................................... [EA.141.120] R v Zammit (1999) 107 A Crim R 489 ..................................... [EA.137.60], [EA.165.450] R v Zampogna (2003) 85 SASR 56; 138 A Crim R 368 ................................... [EA.81.60] R v Zhang (2005) 227 ALR 311; 196 FLR 152; 158 A Crim R 504; [2005] NSWCCA 437 ................ [EA.98.120], [EA.98.180], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.60] R v Zhen (1995) 83 A Crim R 575 ................................................................. [EA.165.480] R v Zheng (1995) 83 A Crim R 572 ................................................................... [EA.81.60] R v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91 ...................................................................... [EA.46.150] R v Zurita [2002] NSWCCA 22 .................................................. [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90] R L Ralston, In the Estate of (unreported, NSW SC, Hodgson J, 12 September 1996) ........................................................................................... [EA.140.60] RA v The Queen (2007) 175 A Crim R 221; [2007] NSWCCA 251 ............... [EA.13.270] RBK v The Queen [2004] WASCA 216 ....................................................... [EA.165B.240] RELC v The Queen (2006) 167 A Crim R 484; [2006] NSWCCA 383 ....... [EA.165.240], [EA.165.450] RG v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 173 ......................................................... [EA.101.150] RGM v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 89 .......................... [EA.101A.120], [EA.165A.210] RH v The Queen (2014) 241 A Crim R 1; [2014] NSWCCA 71 ................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.360] RHB v The Queen [2011] VSCA 295 ....................................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.240] RHG Mortgage Ltd v Ianni [2015] NSWCA 56 .............................................. [EA.55.180] RJ v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 174; [2010] NSWCCA 263 .............. [EA.13.180], [EA.13.210], [EA.13.300], [EA.21.60], [EA.110.60] RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3 ........ [EA.20.180], [EA.20.300], [EA.26.210], [EA.55.180] RR v The Queen [2011] VSCA 442 ............................................ [EA.46.150], [EA.97.120] RRS v The Queen (2013) 231 A Crim R 168; [2013] NSWCCA 94 ........... [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480] RWB v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 147 .................................. [EA.46.150], [EA.141.90] RWC v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 332 ...................................................... [EA.101.150] RWC v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 58 ........................................................ [EA.165.480] Raad v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 268 ...................................................... [EA.165.210] Radi v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 265 ....................................................... [EA.101.150] Raimondi v The Queen [2013] VSCA 194 ....................................................... [EA.60.150] Rajski v Tectran Corp Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 476 .................... [EA.8.90], [EA.131.330] Ramey v The Queen (1994) 68 ALJR 917 ...................................................... [EA.165.450] Ramirez v The Trustee of the Property of Zoltan Sandor, A Bankrupt (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 22 April 1997) .................... [EA.29.150], [EA.36.30] Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642 ............................................................ [EA.79.240] Rana v The Queen [2014] VSCA 198 ................................................................ [EA.81.60] Randall v The Queen [2004] TASSC 42 ........................................................... [EA.38.150] Randwick City Council v Minister for the Environment (1998) 54 ALD 682 ................................................................................................................. [EA.79.180] Rank Film Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380 ......................... [EA.128.180], [EA.128.360] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxxxii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Rapson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 216 ........................................................... [EA.97.120] Rataplan Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCA 674 ..................... [EA.190.80] Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378 ........................................... [EA.59.180], [EA.65.150] Rawack v Spicer [2002] NSWSC 849 .............................................................. [EA.140.60] Reading v ABC [2003] NSWSC 716 .................... [EA.48.180], [EA.55.90], [EA.135.180] Reberger v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 132 .................................................. [EA.46.150] Reed v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 314 .............................. [EA.103.120], [EA.165.540] Rees v Lumen Christi Primary School [2010] VSC 514 ............. [EA.79.300], [EA.80.90] Rees v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 66 ......................................................... [EA.101.360] Rees v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 84 ......................................................... [EA.141.120] Reeves v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 41 VR 275; 236 A Crim R 448; [2013] VSCA 311 .............................. [EA.41.300], [EA.97.120], [EA.101.240] Reeves v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 34 ......................... [EA.165B.120], [EA.165.150], [EA.165.480] Reference of a Question of Law (No 1 of 1999) (1999) 106 A Crim R 408 ...................... [EA.165A.150] Registrar, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations v Ponto [2012] FCA 1500 .......................................................................................... [EA.48.180] Registrar of Aboriginal Corps v Murnkurni Women’s Aboriginal Corporation (1995) 58 FCR 125; 137 ALR 404 ........................................ [EA.75.120] Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98 ............................. [EA.55.180] Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1 .................................................................. [EA.128.540] Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367 ................................................... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] Reid v The Queen [2014] VSCA 295 .............................................................. [EA.114.240] Reliance Financial Services NSW Pty Ltd v Sobbi [2009] NSWSC 1375 .... [EA.128.120] Rend v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 41 .......................................................... [EA.46.120] Renegade Rigging Pty Ltd v Hanlon Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1223 .... [EA.160.60] Renegade Rigging Pty Ltd v Hanlon Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 385 ...... [EA.160.60] Repatriation Commission v Goulding [2008] FCA 1858 ................................. [EA.163.30] Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom [1978] 2 EHRR 25 ............................... [EA.84.60] Retravision (NSW) Ltd v Copeland (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 8 October 1996) ....................................................................... [EA.117.90], [EA.118.270] Reza v Summerhill Orchards Ltd [2013] VSCA 17 .......................................... [EA.46.150] Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds [1985] 2 All ER 712 ................................. [EA.140.60] Rich v Attorney General (NSW) [2013] NSWCA 419 ........... [EA.128.540], [EA.128.780] Rich v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2005] NSWCA 233 ................................................................................................................. [EA.79.240] Rich v Harrington (2007) 245 ALR 106; [2007] FCA 1987 ........................ [EA.118.330], [EA.122.480] Richards v Macquarie Bank Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1403 ............................. [EA.97.120] Richards v Macquarie Bank Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1523 .......................... [EA.Intro.340] Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116 ................................................ [EA.55.180] Rickard Constructions Pty Ltd v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 984 ..................................................... [EA.69.180], [EA.69.240], [EA.69.540] Rickard Constructions Pty Ltd v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 234 ............................................... [EA.117.120], [EA.119.120], [EA.122.360] Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19 ..... [EA.11.90], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.150], [EA.138.210], [EA.138.690] Riley v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 238 ................................ [EA.90.240], [EA.137.210] RinRim Pty Ltd v Deutsche Bank Australia Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1654 ......... [EA.122.270] Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Ltd [2003] FCA 933 ............... [EA.69.150], [EA.69.210] Rio Tinto Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 1200 ....................... [EA.122.480] Rio Tinto Zinc Corp v Westinghouse Electric Corp [1978] AC 547 ............. [EA.128.360] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxiii

Table of Cases

Risk v Northern Territory [2006] FCA 404 ............ [EA.76.90], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.240] Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 116 ................... [EA.69.120] Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 158 ................... [EA.79.120] Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (No 22) (1988) 14 NSWLR 132 .... [EA.117.120] Roach v Page (No 11) [2003] NSWSC 907 ........ [EA.77.60], [EA.79.270], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.60], [EA.136.180] Roach v Page (No 15) [2003] NSWSC 939 .......... [EA.69.60], [EA.69.120], [EA.136.60] Roach v Page (No 17) [2003] NSWSC 973 ................................................... [EA.118.390] Roach v Page (No 26) [2003] NSWSC 1045 ................................................... [EA.190.80] Roach v Page (No 27) [2003] NSWSC 1046 ....... [EA.66A.60], [EA.69.60], [EA.69.120] Roach v Page (No 37) [2004] NSWSC 1048 ................................................... [EA.46.150] Roach v The Queen (2011) 242 CLR 610; 210 A Crim R 300; 85 ALJR 558; [2011] HCA 12 ........... [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.210], [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] Roads & Traffıc Authority of New South Wales v Tetley [2004] NSWSC 925 ................................................................................................................. [EA.183.80] Roads and Traffıc Authority (NSW) v Barrie Toepfer Earthmoving and Land Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 916 ....... [EA.79.180], [EA.80.90], [EA.80.150] Roberts v Burns Philp Trustee & Co Ltd (1985) 5 NSWLR 72 ...................... [EA.65.240] Robinson v Goodman [2013] FCA 893 ........................................ [EA.55.90], [EA.97.450] Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531; 55 A Crim R 318 ................. [EA.104.120], [EA.141.150], [EA.165.450] Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; 73 ALJR 1314; [1999] HCA 42 ................................................................................................................. [EA.165.480] Robinson v The Queen (2006) 162 A Crim R 88; [2006] NSWCCA 192 .... [EA.165.210], [EA.165.390] Robinson v The Queen (No 2) (1991) 180 CLR 531; 55 A Crim R 318; [1991] HCA 38 ........................................................................................... [EA.165.480] Robinson v Woolworths Ltd (2005) 158 A Crim R 546; [2005] NSWCCA 426 ............................................................................................................... [EA.138.120] Rocco v The Queen [2003] HCA Trans 497 (2 December 2003) .................... [EA.55.180] Rodden v The Queen (2008) 182 A Crim R 227; [2008] NSWCCA 53 ....... [EA.101.360] Rodgers v Rodgers (1964) 114 CLR 608 ....................................................... [EA.131.270] Rolfe v Katunga Lucerne Mill Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 252 ........................... [EA.41.300] Rolfe v The Queen (2007) 173 A Crim R 168; [2007] NSWCCA 155 ......... [EA.101.150] Romer v HJ & J Wilson Carriers Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 9 August 1996) .......................................................................................... [EA.190.80] Romer v Wilson Carriers Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 9 August 1996) ................................................................................................. [EA.157.30] Ross v Internet Wines Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 436; [2004] NSWCA 195 ............................................................................................................... [EA.128.780] Rosseau Pty Ltd (in liq) v Jay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2004] NSWSC 818 ............................................................................................. [EA.4.150], [EA.69.240] Rossi v The Queen [2012] VSCA 228 ...................................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Roth (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 242 ...................................... [EA.32.150] Roughley v The Queen (1995) 5 Tas R 8; 78 A Crim R 160 ......................... [EA.137.60], [EA.165.450] Rowley v O’Chee (2000) 1 Qd R 207 ................................................................. [EA.10.60] Rozenes v Beljajev [1995] 1 VR 533; 126 ALR 481 ....................................... [EA.90.300] Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2007] FCA 1535 ....... [EA.87.120] Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 ............. [EA.131.270], [EA.131.300] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxxxiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Russell v Jackson (1851) 9 Hare 387 .............................................................. [EA.121.150] Russell v The Queen [2013] VSCA 155 ............................................................. [EA.60.60] Russell v Western Australia (2011) 214 A Crim R 326; [2011] WASCA 246 ............................................................................................................. [EA.Intro.340] Ryan v Hansen t/as Hansens Solicitors (2000) 49 NSWLR 184 ....................... [EA.4.150] Ryan v Victoria [2015] VSCA 353 .................. [EA.130.60], [EA.130.180], [EA.130.240], [EA.130.300], [EA.130.390], [EA.130.420] Ryan v Watkins [2005] NSWCA 426 ......... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.30], [EA.129.90], [EA.129.120] Ryland v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 120 ....................... [EA.27.120]

S SBEG v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 277 ...................................................................................................... [EA.130.210] SH v The Queen (2012) 83 NSWLR 258; 222 A Crim R 43; [2012] NSWCCA 79 ................................................................................................. [EA.13.210] SJF v The Queen [2011] VSCA 281 ............................................................... [EA.141.120] SKA v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 205 ....... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.165.480] SLJ v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 514; 233 A Crim R 341; [2013] VSCA 193 ................................................................................................................. [EA.37.270] SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 1116 ........... [EA.59.90] SQMB v MIMIA (2004) 205 ALR 392 .............................................................. [EA.122.60] SS Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 288 ................................................................................................................. [EA.55.180] STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Bowen Basin Coal Group Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1002 ...................................................... [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.21.150], [EA.21.210] SVI Systems Pty Ltd v Best & Less Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1507 ..................... [EA.122.270] SW v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 103 ......................................................... [EA.165.480] SWC v The Queen [2011] VSCA 264 ............................................................. [EA.141.120] SWV Pty Ltd v Spiroc Pty Ltd (2006) 201 FLR 238; [2006] NSWSC 668 ........................ [EA.131.450] SZGMB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 437 ............................................................................................ [EA.163.30] Saffron v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 109 ALR 695 .............. [EA.128.360] Sagacious Legal Pty Ltd v Wesfarmers General Insurance Ltd [2011] FCAFC 53 ..................................................................................................... [EA.55.180] Sagacious Legal Pty Ltd v Westfarmers General Insurance Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 482 .......................................................................... [EA.8.60], [EA.46.150] Salmond v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 141 ................................................ [EA.165.480] Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh [1971] 2 QB 597 ...................................................... [EA.75.90] Salvati v Donato [2010] FamCAFC 263 ........................................................ [EA.144.120] Samadi v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 330 .................................................. [EA.101.150] Sanchez v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 171 ..................................................... [EA.89.90] Sanderson v Rabuntja [2014] NTSC 13 ........................................................... [EA.18.120] Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 ............... [EA.126B.270], [EA.10.60], [EA.130.60], [EA.130.120], [EA.130.210], [EA.130.300], [EA.130.330], [EA.130.390] Santo v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 269 ......................................................... [EA.55.60] Saoud v The Queen (2014) 87 NSWLR 481; [2014] NSWCCA 136 .............. [EA.55.90], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.450] Saunders v The Queen (2004) 149 A Crim R 174; [2004] TASSC 95 .......... [EA.20.180], [EA.66.210] Scalise v Bezzina [2003] NSWCA 362 ......................................... [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings (2000) 200 CLR 121 .................................... [EA.55.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxv

Table of Cases

Schipp v Cameron (No 2) (1997) 38 ATR 1 ..................................................... [EA.39.120] Schofield, Re; Ex parte Rangott v P & B Baron Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 280 ..................................................................................................................... [EA.8.60] Schulman v Abbott Tout Lawyers [2010] FCA 308 ........................................ [EA.122.150] Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd v Goman (2007) 210 FLR 161; [2007] NSWSC 278 .................................................................................................. [EA.160.60] Scott MacRae Investments Pty Ltd v Baylily Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 82 ........ [EA.75.90] Seafood Imports Pty Ltd v ANL Singapore Pte Ltd (No 1) [2009] FCA 435 ......................................................................................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Secretary, Department of Health & Ageing v Prime Nature Prize Pty Ltd (in liq) [2010] FCA 597 ............................................................................... [EA.191.20] Sellers Fabrics Pty Ltd v Hapag-Lloyd AG [1998] NSWSC 644 ................... [EA.69.240] Sellers Pty Ltd v Hapag-Lloyd AG (unreported, NSW SC, Admiralty Div, Giles CJ Comm D, 11 September 1997) ................................................... [EA.118.390] Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 ................................ [EA.Intro.350] Semaan v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 503; 230 A Crim R 568; [2013] VSCA 134 ........................................................ [EA.55.360], [EA.55.390], [EA.97.120] Sendy v Commonwealth [2002] NSWSC 1109 ....................... [EA.118.180], [EA.118.210] Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2005] FCA 864 ................... [EA.117.120], [EA.122.210] Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2005] FCAFC 125 .............. [EA.117.120], [EA.128.150] Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2006] FCA 343 .................. [EA.131.120], [EA.131.210], [EA.131.240], [EA.131.270] Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 8) [2005] FCA 1348 ............................... [EA.136.60] Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 14) [2006] FCA 500 ............................... [EA.79.240] Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 15) [2006] FCA 515 ............................... [EA.79.240] 789TEN Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp Ltd [2005] NSWSC 123 ............. [EA.119.120] Sever v The Queen (2007) 179 A Crim R 110; [2007] NSWCCA 339 ........... [EA.20.180] Sevic v Roarty (1998) 44 NSWLR 287 .......................................................... [EA.122.330] Sexton v Homer [2013] NSWCA 414 ..................................... [EA.117.120], [EA.118.360] Seymour v Attorney-General (Cth) (1984) 1 FCR 416 ...................................... [EA.90.60] Seymour v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 19 NSWLR 219 ..... [EA.46.150] Seymour v Price [1998] FCA 1224 ................................................................. [EA.130.390] Seymour v The Queen (2006) 162 A Crim R 576; [2006] NSWCCA 206 .... [EA.137.120] Sharjade Pty Ltd v RAAF Landings [2008] NSWSC 151 .............................. [EA.122.480] Sharp v Rangott [2008] FCAFC 45 .................................................................. [EA.26.120] Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365 ..................................... [EA.43.210], [EA.106.90] Shea v TruEnergy Services Pty Ltd (No 5) (2013) 303 ALR 230; [2013] FCA 937 ...................................................................................................... [EA.122.180] Sheehan v The Queen (2006) 163 A Crim R 397; [2006] NSWCCA 233 .......................... [EA.165B.270] Sheen v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 259 ..................................................... [EA.165.480] Sheikholeslami v Tolcher [2009] NSWSC 920 ............................................... [EA.128.120] Sheldon v Sun Alliance (1988) 50 SASR 236; (1989) 53 SASR 97 ............... [EA.87.120] Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 ................................................. [EA.141.120] Short v The Queen [2000] NSWCCA 462 ...................................................... [EA.141.150] Shoshana Pty Ltd v 10th Cantanae Pty Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 285 .................... [EA.79.120] Sibanda v The Queen [2011] VSCA 285 .................................... [EA.89.90], [EA.165.480] Siebel v The Queen (1992) 59 A Crim R 105 .................................................. [EA.20.150] Silver Fox Co Pty Ltd v Lenards Pty Ltd (No 3) [2004] FCA 1570 .............. [EA.131.60], [EA.131.510] Silvia v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] NSWSC 562 ................................... [EA.56.60] Sim v Powell (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 10 September 1997) .............. [EA.79.150] Simon v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 328 ...................................................... [EA.141.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxxxvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Simply Irresistible Pty Ltd v Couper [2010] VSC 505 .................................. [EA.131.480] Sims v Thomas [2007] TASSC 106 ................................................................. [EA.138.720] Sindoni v The Queen (2011) 211 A Crim R 187; [2011] VSCA 195 .............. [EA.116.90] Singapore Airlines v Sydney Airports Corp [2004] NSWSC 380 ................. [EA.118.390], [EA.122.180], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.270], [EA.122.510], [EA.133.60] Singh v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2006) 164 A Crim R 284; [2006] NSWCCA 333 .................................. [EA.164.90], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.480] Singh v Newridge Property Group Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 411 ...................... [EA.67.60] Singh v Singh [2007] NSWSC 1357 ................................................................. [EA.59.240] Singh v The Queen [2011] VSCA 263 ........................................ [EA.66.120], [EA.66.180] Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Weston [2011] NSWSC 1083 .................................. [EA.131A.90] Sio v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 42 ....................................... [EA.65.180], [EA.65.240] Skinner v The Queen [2015] VSCA 26 ............................................................. [EA.41.300] Skipworth v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 37 .................................................. [EA.66.180] Smale v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 328 ..................................................... [EA.137.210] Smart v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 15 ................ [EA.55.330], [EA.137.90], [EA.141.90] Smith v Gould (No 1) [2012] VSC 210 .......................................................... [EA.131.150] Smith v The Queen (1970) 121 CLR 572 ......................................................... [EA.29.180] Smith v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 588 ................................. [EA.80.150], [EA.106.240] Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; 75 ALJR 1398 ........... [EA.55.60], [EA.55.90], [EA.55.270], [EA.56.90], [EA.76.90], [EA.78.60], [EA.114.240], [EA.115.300], [EA.116.90] Smith v The Queen [2012] VSCA 187 ................... [EA.46.90], [EA.46.120], [EA.46.150] Smith v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 182 ................................. [EA.55.330], [EA.137.90] Smith v Western Australia (2014) 88 ALJR 384; [2014] HCA 3 ...................... [EA.9.120] Smits v Roach [2006] HCA 36 ........................................................................ [EA.190.120] Sokolowskyj v The Queen (2014) 239 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 55 ...................... [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.137.60] Song v Ying [2010] NSWCA 237 .................................................................... [EA.128.120] Sorby v Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281 ........................ [EA.128.90], [EA.128.150], [EA.128.180], [EA.128.360], [EA.128.600] Soteriou v The Queen [2013] VSCA 328 ................................... [EA.85.210], [EA.85.300] Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 .................. [EA.56.210] South Shropshire District Council v Amos [1987] 1 All ER 340 .................. [EA.131.270] South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Ltd v Gioia [2000] NSWCA 249 ................................................................................................................... [EA.78.60] South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds (2007) 4 DDCR 421; [2007] NSWCA 16 ............................................................................. [EA.136.300] Southern Cross Airlines Holdings Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Andersen & Co (1998) 84 FCR 472 ............................................................ [EA.122.270], [EA.122.360] Southern Cross Airports v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] NSWSC 349 ......................................................................... [EA.192A.60], [EA.69.120] Southland Coal Pty Ltd, Re (2005) 189 FLR 297; [2005] NSWSC 259 ...... [EA.118.480] Southland Coal Pty Ltd (receivers & managers appointed) (in liq), Re (2006) 203 FLR 1; [2006] NSWSC 899 .......................... [EA.118.150], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.570] Sovereign v Bevillesta [2000] NSWSC 521 ..... [EA.122.90], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240] Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd (1996) 68 FCR 322; 138 ALR 735 ..................... [EA.118.360], [EA.118.390] Spence v Demasi (1988) 48 SASR 536 ...................................... [EA.65.240], [EA.81.240] Spencer v Bamber [2012] NSWCA 274 ........................................................... [EA.46.150] Spencer v Commonwealth [2012] FCAFC 169 ..................... [EA.130.210], [EA.130.240], [EA.130.390], [EA.133.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxvii

Table of Cases

Spencer v Commonwealth [2014] FCA 1288 .................................................... [EA.56.120] Spencer v The Queen (2003) 137 A Crim R 444 ........................................... [EA.165.480] Sportsbet Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 3) [2009] FCA 1283 ....................... [EA.10.60] Stack v Western Australia (2004) 29 WAR 526; 151 A Crim R 112; [2004] WASCA 300 ............................................................... [EA.42.60], [EA.165.450] Stafford v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 510 .................................................... [EA.165.450] Stambolziovski v Nestorovic [2015] NSWCA 332 ............................................ [EA.55.180] Standard Chartered Bank of Australia v Dean [1999] NSWSC 1042 .......... [EA.128.690] Stanley v Service to Youth Council Inc (No 2) (2014) 317 ALR 141; [2014] FCA 644 ............................................................................................ [EA.97.120] Stanoevski v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115; 118 A Crim R 247; [2001] HCA 4 ....................... [EA.16.90], [EA.29.60], [EA.32.90], [EA.39.150], [EA.32.180], [EA.37.150], [EA.38.150], [EA.46.180], [EA.67.90], [EA.104.90], [EA.106.120], [EA.108.180], [EA.108C.150], [EA.110.60], [EA.112.60], [EA.192.40], [EA.192.80], [EA.192.100] Stark v The Queen (2013) 230 A Crim R 455; [2013] VSCA 34 ................... [EA.66.300] State Bank of New South Wales v Lo [2000] NSWSC 1191 ............................ [EA.59.240] State Central Authority v Blyth [2010] FamCA 90 ........................................ [EA.121.120] State Rail Authority (NSW) v Brown (2006) 66 NSWLR 540; [2006] NSWCA 220 ........................................................................... [EA.46.60], [EA.103.120] State Rail Authority (NSW) v Smith (1998) 45 NSWLR 382 ........................ [EA.131.120] Steel v Beks [2010] NSWSC 1405 .................................................................... [EA.160.60] Steffen v Ruban [1966] 2 NSWLR 623 ............................................................. [EA.79.240] Stevens v McCallum [2006] ACTCA 13 ........................................................... [EA.66.210] Stevens v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 91; 156 A Crim R 487; [2005] HCA 65 ....................................................................................................... [EA.141.120] Stewart v Ronalds [2009] NSWCA 277 .............................................................. [EA.10.60] Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd v Darryl I Coombs Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 323 ........................................................................... [EA.79.300], [EA.79.420] Stojcevski v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 27 .................................................. [EA.165.90] Straker v The Queen (1977) 51 ALJR 690 ......................................................... [EA.81.60] Strauss v Police (SA) (2013) 224 A Crim R 389; [2013] SASC 3 ............... [EA.114.240], [EA.114.300] Strikers Management Pty Ltd; Australian Securities Commission v Peter Dimitri (unreported, FCA, Burchett J, 18 November 1997) ..................... [EA.121.120] Strinic v Singh (2009) 74 NSWLR 419; [2009] NSWCA 15 .......................... [EA.144.60] Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5 ........................................................... [EA.140.60] Stuart v The Queen (1959) 101 CLR 1 ............................................................ [EA.20.150] Stubley v WA [2011] HCA 7 .............................................................................. [EA.184.20] Stubley v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 36 ...................... [EA.141.120], [EA.184.20] Stubley v Western Australia (2011) 242 CLR 374; 85 ALJR 435; [2011] HCA 7 ........................................ [EA.55.90], [EA.55.390], [EA.97.120], [EA.101.180] Su v Chang [1999] FamCA 1203 .................................................................... [EA.190.120] Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 ................................... [EA.59.180] Sugden v Sugden (2007) 49 MVR 96; [2007] NSWCA 312 ........................ [EA.117.120], [EA.118.240], [EA.126.60] Sullivan v Gordon (1999) 47 NSWLR 319 ...................................................... [EA.144.60] Sumner v The Queen (2010) 29 VR 398; 205 A Crim R 325; [2010] VSCA 221 ................................................................................................... [EA.165.480] Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528 ...................................................... [EA.101.180] Sutton v The Queen [2015] VSCA 251 ............................................................. [EA.37.270] Svajcer v The Queen (2010) 200 A Crim R 587; [2010] VSCA 116 ............ [EA.165.540] Svajcer v Woolworths Ltd [2015] VSC 543 ...................................................... [EA.135.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] lxxxviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Swan v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 234 A Crim R 372; [2013] VSCA 226 ....................................................................................................... [EA.55.60] Swann v Spiropolos [2006] NSWSC 461 ........................................................... [EA.53.60] Sych v Hunter (1974) 8 SASR 118 ................................................................... [EA.79.240] Sydney, City of v Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 942 ................................................................................................................... [EA.44.60] Sydney, City of v Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 990 ................................................................................................................. [EA.136.90] Sydney Airports Corp Ltd v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2005] NSWCA 47 ..... [EA.118.330], [EA.118.360], [EA.118.390] Sydney Attractions Group Pty Ltd v Schulman [2012] NSWSC 951 ........... [EA.192A.60] Sydney Attractions Group Pty Ltd v Schulman [2013] NSWSC 858 .............. [EA.69.210] Sydney South West Area Health Service v Stamoulis [2009] NSWCA 153 .... [EA.79.300] Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 234 FCR 549; [2002] FCAFC 157 ............................................... [EA.55.270], [EA.79.240]

T T v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 460 ................................................................ [EA.18.180] T & Director of Youth & Community Services, Re [1980] 1 NSWLR 392 ...... [EA.94.90] TB v New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 1145 .................................................... [EA.60.60] TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning [2002] NSWCA 82 ............................... [EA.79.240] THD v The Queen [2010] VSCA 115 ............................................................. [EA.115.300] TJ v Western Australia (No 3) [2015] FCA 1359 .................... [EA.79.270], [EA.136.180] TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; 76 ALJR 1579; 133 A Crim R 574; [2002] HCA 46 ......................................................................................................... [EA.Intro.180], [EA.101.150], [EA.110.90], [EA.137.60], [EA.192A.40], [EA.192A.60] TP v The Queen [2012] VSCA 166 .................................................................. [EA.46.150] TS v Constable Courtney James [2014] NSWSC 984 ....................................... [EA.4.180] TWL v The Queen (2012) 222 A Crim R 445 ................................................ [EA.101.150] Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v State of Victoria [2013] VSC 302 ...... [EA.117.90], [EA.124.60], [EA.133.60] Taber v The Queen (2007) 170 A Crim R 427; [2007] NSWCCA 116 .......... [EA.65.270] Talacko v Talacko [2014] VSC 328 ...................... [EA.91.60], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.180] Talbot v NRMA Ltd [2000] NSWSC 602 ........................................................ [EA.121.150] Taleb v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2014] VSC 285 ...................... [EA.55.510] Tambree v Travel Compensation Fund [2004] NSWCA 24 ............................. [EA.98.360] Tampion v Anderson (1974) 48 ALJR 11 ........................................................... [EA.75.90] Tan v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 332 .................................................. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Tanti v Rothe (unreported, NSW SC, McLelland CJ in Eq, 28 November 1996) .............................................................................................................. [EA.79.300] Tarrant v Statewide Secured Investments Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 582 .................. [EA.27.60] Tasmania v B (No 2) [2012] TASSC 39 ............................................................. [EA.60.90] Tasmania v Bott [2015] TASSC 13 ................................................................. [EA.138.120] Tasmania v Crane (2004) 148 A Crim R 346; [2004] TASSC 80 ................. [EA.138.150] Tasmania v Farmer (2004) 148 A Crim R 99; [2004] TASSC 104 .............. [EA.101.240] Tasmania v Mayne [2009] TASSC 82 ............... [EA.38.150], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150] Tasmania v S [2004] TASSC 84 ...................................................................... [EA.101.240] Tasmania v Stojakovic [2008] TASSC 48 ....................................................... [EA.139.150] Tasmania v Sudani [2011] TASSC 50 ............................................................... [EA.85.210] Tasmania v Tu Ai Lin [2011] TASSC 54 .......................................................... [EA.69.120] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

lxxxix

Table of Cases

Tasmania v Y [2007] TASSC 112 .................................................................... [EA.101.120] Tate v Tate (2002) 169 FLR 190 ............................................................... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] Taxation, Commissioner of v Rio Tinto Ltd (2006) 151 FCR 341; 229 ALR 304; [2006] FCAFC 86 ........................ [EA.122.60], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.150] Taxation, Commissioner of v Spotless Services Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 404 .... [EA.118.390] Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of v Ahern (No 2) [1988] 2 Qd R 158 ......... [EA.75.120] Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of v Clear Blue Developments Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1223 .......................................................................................... [EA.160.60] Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of v Currockbilly Pty Ltd (2002) 172 FLR 99; [2002] NSWSC 1061 ............................................................................... [EA.4.150] Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of v Law Institute of Victoria Ltd [2010] VSCA 73 ............................................................................. [EA.130.210], [EA.130.390] Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of v Meredith (2007) 245 ALR 150; 2007 ATC 5353; [2007] NSWCA 354 ............................................ [EA.163.30], [EA.160.60] Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of v Trimcoll Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1324 ..................... [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30], [EA.167.30], [EA.167.60], [EA.169.60], [EA.169.90], [EA.169.150] Taxation, Deputy Commissioner of v Trio Site Services Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 776 ........................................................................................................ [EA.160.60] Taxation (Cth), Commissioner of v Pratt Holdings (2005) 60 ATR 266; 225 ALR 266; [2005] FCA 1247 ............................................................... [EA.118.390] Taylor v Burgess [2002] NSWSC 676 ............................................................ [EA.138.120] Taylor v The Queen (1978) 45 FLR 343; 22 ALR 599 ................................... [EA.79.480] Tedeschi v Singh [1948] 1 Ch 319 .................................................................... [EA.26.150] Tedesco v The Queen [2003] SASC 79 ........................................................... [EA.101.360] Telstra Corp v Australis Media Holdings (1997) 41 NSWLR 147 .............. [EA.118.210], [EA.118.270], [EA.118.300] Telstra Corp v Australis Media Holdings (No 2) (1997) 41 NSWLR 346 .... [EA.122.240], [EA.122.300], [EA.Intro.120] Telstra Corp Ltd v BT Australasia Pty Ltd (1998) 85 FCR 152 ..................... [EA.122.90] Telstra Corp Ltd v Minister for Communications, Information Technology & the Arts (No 2) [2007] FCA 1445 .......................................................... [EA.118.330] Temple v Powell (No 1) [2007] FCA 987 ................................... [EA.28.120], [EA.37.240] Teoh v Greenway [2015] ACTSC 133 ............................................................ [EA.131.540] Terranora Group Management Pty Ltd v Terranora Lakes Country Club Ltd (in liq) (unreported, NSW SC, Santow J, 1 December 1997) .............. [EA.75.150] Thackray v Gunns Plantations Ltd [2011] VSC 380 .......................................... [EA.50.30] Thatcher v Charles (1961) 104 CLR 57 ............................................................. [EA.81.60] The Environment, Heritage & the Arts, Minister for v PGP Developments Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 58 ................................................................................. [EA.191.20] Theodoropoulos v The Queen [2015] VSCA 364 ............................................. [EA.81.240] Thi Dung Ta v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 32 ....... [EA.20.90], [EA.37.90], [EA.76.90] Thomas v New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 316 ............................................ [EA.69.240] Thomas v SMP (International) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 822 ........................... [EA.28.120] Thomas v SMP International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 900 ................. [EA.26.150] Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584 ...................................................... [EA.141.90] Thomas v Van Den Yssel (1976) 14 SASR 205 ................................................ [EA.46.150] Thompson v The Queen (1968) 117 CLR 313; 42 ALJR 16 ......................... [EA.101.150] Thorne v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 10 ..................................................... [EA.165.480] 3WJ Pty Ltd v Kanj [2008] NSWCA 321 .................................. [EA.38.150], [EA.192.80] Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v AMIEU (1979) 42 FLR 331 ......................... [EA.101.180] Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1070 .......... [EA.118.150], [EA.122.60], [EA.122.240] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xc

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1263 .............. [EA.80.90] Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 637 ............... [EA.75.90], [EA.189.60] Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 654 .............. [EA.136.90] Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 657 ................ [EA.87.90] Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd (2009) 258 ALR 598; [2009] NSWSC 769 ........... [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [EA.63.60], [EA.135.150], [EA.81.240] Timbery v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 355 ......................... [EA.165.210], [EA.165.480] Times Properties Pty Ltd v Challenge Bank Ltd [1996] ATPR 41–455 ......... [EA.117.90], [EA.118.270] Timms v Commonwealth Bank [2003] NSWSC 576 ................. [EA.69.120], [EA.69.240], [EA.69.600] Tirango Nominees Pty Ltd v Dairy Vale Foods Ltd (No 2) (1998) 83 FCR 397 ......................................................................................... [EA.122.270], [EA.126.60] Toalepai v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 270 ................................................. [EA.101.360] Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39 ......................... [EA.138.390] Tomark Pty Ltd v Bellevue Crescent Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 347 ................. [EA.79.180] Tomasevic v Travaglini (2007) 17 VR 100; [2007] VSC 337 ......................... [EA.46.150] Tongahai v The Queen (2014) 241 A Crim R 217; [2014] NSWCCA 81 ...... [EA.53.150] Tony Azzi (Automobiles) Pty Ltd v Volvo Car Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 375; (2007) 71 NSWLR 140 ....................................................... [EA.131.510] Toohey v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1965] AC 595 .................... [EA.101A.120], [EA.108C.60], [EA.106.240] Towercom Pty Ltd v Fahour [2011] VSC 455 ........................ [EA.122.180], [EA.122.270] Towney v Minister for Land & Water Conservation (NSW) (1997) 76 FCR 401 ....................................................................................... [EA.126.60], [EA.Intro.270] Townsend v Townsend [2001] NSWCA 136 ..................................................... [EA.97.120] Tozer Kemsley & Millbourn (A/asia) Pty Ltd v Collier’s Interstate Transport Service Ltd (1956) 94 CLR 384; [1956] HCA 6 ........................ [EA.55.180] Trade Practices Commission v Abbco Ice Works (1994) 52 FCR 96 ........... [EA.128.300], [EA.187.20] Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (1989) 88 ALR 69 .................... [EA.128.360], [EA.131.270] Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1984) 56 ALR 647 ............................................................................................................... [EA.122.390] Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2013] NSWSC 211 ....................... [EA.122.180] Traderight (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd (No 16) [2013] NSWSC 418 ................................................................................................ [EA.118.540] Traffıc Calming Australia Pty Ltd v CTS Creative Traffıc Solutions Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 741 ............................................................................................ [EA.69.540] Tran v Magistrates’ Court (Vic) [1998] 4 VR 294 ........................................... [EA.55.180] TransGrid v Members of Lloyds Syndicate 3210 [2011] NSWSC 301 ....... [EA.131A.90], [EA.131A.180], [EA.117.90] Transport Publishing Co Pty Ltd v Literature Board of Review (1956) 99 CLR 111 .................................................................................... [EA.79.150], [EA.80.90] Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd [2011] FCA 1132 .............. [EA.58.60], [EA.150.90] Trendlen Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 741 .......... [EA.125.120] Trimcoll Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] NSWCA 307 ...................... [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30], [EA.167.30], [EA.167.60], [EA.167.90], [EA.169.90] Trkulja v Markovic [2015] VSCA 298 .............................................................. [EA.55.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xci

Table of Cases

Trudgett v The Queen (2008) 70 NSWLR 696; 182 A Crim R 253; [2008] NSWCCA 62 .................................................... [EA.114.60], [EA.114.90], [EA.116.90] Trusted Cloud Pty Limited v Core Desktop Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 33 ............ [EA.192A.60] Trylow v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCA 446 ...................................... [EA.97.240] Trzesinski v Daire (1986) 44 SASR 43 ........................................ [EA.17.90], [EA.18.180] Tsang v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2011) 219 A Crim R 304; [2011] VSCA 336 ........................................... [EA.30.120], [EA.87.120], [EA.165.450] Tsang v The Queen [2012] HCATrans 198 ....................................................... [EA.30.120] Tsang Chi Ming v Uvanna Pty Ltd (t/as North West Immigration Services) (1996) 140 ALR 273 .......................................... [EA.48.180], [EA.59.180], [EA.67.90] Tuite v The Queen [2015] VSCA 148 ......................................... [EA.79.120], [EA.79.300] Tukuafu v The Queen [2014] VSCA 345 ........................................................ [EA.165.210] Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234; 167 A Crim R 192; 81 ALJR 391; [2006] HCA 56 ..... [EA.101.150], [EA.165B.210], [EA.165B.240], [EA.165.480] Tuncok v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1069 ................................................................. [EA.155A.30], [EA.155.30] Tunja v The Queen [2013] VSCA 174 .................................... [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] Turco v HP Mercantile Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 209 ........................ [EA.128.540] Turnbull v Gorgievski [1999] NSWSC 871 .................................... [EA.67.60], [EA.67.90] Turnell v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 399 ..................................................... [EA.46.150] 260 Oxford Street Pty Ltd v Premetis [2006] NSWCA 96 .............................. [EA.55.510] Twynam Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v AWB (Australia) Ltd [2008] FCA 1922 ........ [EA.97.120] Tyneside Property Management Pty Ltd v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 395 ............................................................................... [EA.79.330]

U Ultrasonic Slimming Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 547 ............................................................................................... [EA.131A.90] Ulutui v The Queen [2014] VSCA 110 ................................... [EA.101.360], [EA.190.120] Unilever Australia Ltd v Revlon Australia Pty Ltd (No 6) [2014] FCA 1409 ............................................................................................................. [EA.135.150] United Dairy Power Pty Ltd v Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co Ltd [2011] FCA 762 .............................................................................................. [EA.75.60] United Group Resources Pty Ltd v Calabro (No 5) [2011] FCA 1408 ........... [EA.55.180] United Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Lopmand Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 870 .... [EA.79.330] Unsworth v Tristar Steering & Suspension Australia Ltd [2007] FCA 1081 ...................... [EA.122.210] Unsworth v Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Ltd [2007] FCA 1082 ............................................................................................................... [EA.133.60] Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 287 ................................... [EA.10.60]

V Van Der Lee v New South Wales [2002] NSWCA 286 ............... [EA.11.90], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120], [EA.131.570], [EA.131.600] Van Doore by his Tutor the Protective Commissioner v Mendez (unreported, NSW SC, Dunford J, 30 June 1997) .................................... [EA.131.510] Van Lan Ha v The Queen [2014] VSCA 335 ..................................................... [EA.53.60] Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656; 35 A Crim R 232 .............. [EA.90.60], [EA.115.150] Varawa v Howard Smith & Co Ltd (1910) 10 CLR 382 ................................. [EA.125.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xcii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Vasil v National Australia Bank Ltd (1999) 46 NSWLR 207 ....................... [EA.128.540], [EA.128.780] Vata-Meyer v Commonwealth [2015] FCAFC 139 ........................................... [EA.140.60] Velevski v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 402 ........ [EA.79.120], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.480], [EA.141.120] Velkoski v The Queen (2014) 242 A Crim R 222; [2014] VSCA 121 ........ [EA.Intro.350], [EA.66.300], [EA.97.60], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.180], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.360] Vella v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 148 .......................................................... [EA.76.90] Vergara v Ewin [2014] FCAFC 100 ................................................................. [EA.140.60] Verge v Devere Holdings Pty Ltd (2009) 258 ALR 464; [2009] FCA 832 .... [EA.131.480] Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128 ............................................................. [EA.79.180] Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1572 ................ [EA.128.360], [EA.128.540], [EA.128.690] Versi v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 206 .............................. [EA.101.360], [EA.141.120] Vetrovec v The Queen [1982] 67 CCC (2d) 1 ................................................ [EA.165.210] Vic Hotel Pty Ltd v DC Payments Australasia Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 101 ......................... [EA.122.150] Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195; [2006] NSWCCA 60 ........... [EA.62.60], [EA.137.210] Victoria v Brazel (2008) 181 A Crim R 562 ......................... [EA.130.210], [EA.130.330], [EA.130.420] Victoria v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd [2013] VSCA 180 ........................................ [EA.133.60] Victorian Women Lawyers’ Assn Inc v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 983 ........................................................................................................ [EA.144.60] Victorian Workcover Authority v Elsdon [2013] VSCA 235 .............................. [EA.55.90] Vines v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (2007) 62 ACSR 1; 25 ACLC 448; [2007] NSWCA 75 ..................................... [EA.46.60], [EA.140.60] Violi v Berrivale Orchards Ltd (2000) 99 FCR 580; 173 ALR 818; [2000] FCA 797 ............................................................................................................ [EA.8.60] Visscher v Maritime Union of Australia (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 1572 ........... [EA.39.240] Vitali v Stachnik [2001] NSWSC 303 ................ [EA.69.180], [EA.69.240], [EA.135.150] Vitek v Estate Homes Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1805 ........................................ [EA.81.120] Vo v The Queen [2013] NTCCA 4 .................................................................... [EA.112.60] Vocisano v Vocisano (1974) 130 CLR 267 ......................................................... [EA.38.90]

W W v The Queen (2001) 115 FCR 41; 124 A Crim R 545; 189 ALR 633; [2001] FCA 1648 ............. [EA.Intro.120], [EA.101.120], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240] W v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 110 ......................................................... [EA.165B.120] W (Sex Abuse: Standard of Proof), Re [2004] FamCA 768 ............................. [EA.140.60] W K v The Queen [2011] VSCA 345 ................................................................ [EA.90.270] WAC v The Queen [2010] HCATrans 167 ...................................................... [EA.165.480] WAQ v Di Pino [2012] QCA 283 ................................................. [EA.46.60], [EA.46.150] WC v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 231 .......................................................... [EA.55.570] WC v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 52 ......................................................... [EA.Intro.350] WFS v The Queen (2011) 223 A Crim R 327; [2011] VSCA 347 ............... [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360] WO v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2009] NSWCCA 275 ......... [EA.192A.40] Wade v Director of Public Prosecutions (2014) 41 VR 434; 239 A Crim R 29; [2014] VSCA 13 ............................................ [EA.48.90], [EA.48.270], [EA.52.30] Wah v The Queen (2014) 239 A Crim R 41; [2014] VSCA 7 ......................... [EA.110.90] Wahi v The Queen [2015] VSCA 132 ............................................................... [EA.110.60] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xciii

Table of Cases

Wakeley v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 321 ..................................................... [EA.26.150] Waldor Development v Riverquay Developments [2005] NSWSC 8 ............. [EA.135.150] Walford v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2012) 217 A Crim R 555; [2012] NSWCA 290 ........................................................................... [EA.114.180] Walker v Walker (1937) 57 CLR 630 ........................................ [EA.35.60], [EA.Intro.150] Wallis v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 4 ......................................... [EA.98.120], [EA.141.120] Walsh and Johnson, Ex parte; In Re Yates (1925) 37 CLR 36 ............... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.30] Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 380 ............................................................ [EA.11.90] Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 .......... [EA.59.180], [EA.59.210], [EA.65.210] Ward v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 46 .......................................................... [EA.141.90] Warman International Ltd v Envirotech Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 478 ............................................................................................................... [EA.128.360] Warner v Women’s Hospital [1954] VLR 410 ................................................ [EA.119.120] Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; 53 ALJR 293; [1979] HCA 9 ...... [EA.65.240], [EA.97.480], [EA.101.450] Washer v Western Australia (2007) 82 ALJR 33; [2007] HCA 48 ................... [EA.55.60], [EA.55.450] Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 ..................... [EA.118.90], [EA.119.120] Waterwell Shipping Inc v HIH Casualty & GIO Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Giles CJ Comm D, 8 September 1997) ................................................ [EA.69.240] Watharow v Western Australia [2013] WASCA 112 ...................................... [EA.165.480] Wati v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1996) 71 FCR 103 .......... [EA.140.60] Watson v McLearnon [2000] NSWSC 19 ....................................................... [EA.125.180] Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 716 ........................................... [EA.118.390] Waugh Asset Management v Merrill Lynch [2010] NSWSC 197 ................. [EA.131A.90] Wayne Lawrence Pty Ltd v Hunt [1999] NSWSC 1044 ........ [EA.118.600], [EA.122.150] Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436 ............................................. [EA.76.90], [EA.79.150] Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41 ................................. [EA.165.360], [EA.165.480] Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; 68 A Crim R 251; [1993] HCA 65 ....................................................................... [EA.20.180], [EA.20.420] Wentworth v Rogers (No 10) (1987) 8 NSWLR 398 ................. [EA.39.210], [EA.39.240] Wentworth v Wentworth (unreported, NSW SC, Santow J, 8 April 1997) ....... [EA.75.90], [EA.79.240] Wentworth District Capital Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 862 ............................................................................................ [EA.144.60] Werden v The Queen [2015] VSCA 72 ......................................... [EA.23.90], [EA.27.120] West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161 ....................................................................... [EA.46.60] Westbus Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Ishak [2006] NSWCA 198 .... [EA.140.60] Western Australia v Wood [2008] WASCA 81 .................................................. [EA.184.20] Weston v Publishing & Broadcasting Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1288 ................... [EA.122.180] Westpac Banking Corp v 789TEN Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 321 .................... [EA.117.90], [EA.118.390], [EA.119.120] Wheldon v Dinh [2010] FamCA 740 ................................................................ [EA.144.60] White v Johnston (2015) 87 NSWLR 779; [2015] NSWCA 18 ....................... [EA.95.60], [EA.97.60], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.270] White v Taylor [1969] 1 Ch 150 ......................................................................... [EA.74.60] White Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd (in liq) v White [2005] NSWCA 173 .... [EA.55.180], [EA.136.60] White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169 ............................................................................................. [EA.46.60], [EA.55.180] Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 ........................... [EA.27.120], [EA.41.300] Wilcox v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 42 ........................................................ [EA.98.120] Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 ............................................................. [EA.11.90] [All references are to paragraph numbers] xciv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Cases

Williams v The Queen (2000) 119 A Crim R 490; [2000] FCA 1868 ............ [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180] Williams Advanced Materials, Inc v Target Technology Company LLC [2004] FCA 1405 .......................................................................................... [EA.190.80] Williamson v United States 114 S Ct 2431 (1994) ........................................... [EA.65.240] Wilson v Mitchell (No 2) [2014] VSC 332 ....................................................... [EA.64.150] Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334 ..................................................... [EA.101.150] Wilson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 328 .......................................................... [EA.141.120] Wily v Fitzgibbon [1998] FCA 121 ..................................................................... [EA.84.60] Wily v Terra Cresta Business Solutions Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 949 .............. [EA.75.60], [EA.75.120] Wimbridge v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 196 ....................................... [EA.116.90] Wingecarribee Shire Council v Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd (in Liq) (No 6) [2011] FCA 350 .............................................................................. [EA.131.270] Winmar v Western Australia (2007) 35 WAR 159; 177 A Crim R 418; [2007] WASCA 244 .............................................................. [EA.115.300], [EA.116.90] Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 .......................... [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60], [EA.194.20] Wojcic v Incorporated Nominal Defendant [1969] VR 323 ............................. [EA.39.240] Wood v The Queen [2001] NSWCCA 228 ..................................................... [EA.165.360] Wood v The Queen (2012) 84 NSWLR 581; [2012] NSWCCA 21 ............... [EA.20.150], [EA.79.330], [EA.114.240] Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460 ......................... [EA.144.90] Woods v Smith [1976] WAR 13 ....................................................................... [EA.128.540] WorkCover v Lindores Contractors Pty Ltd [2003] NSWIRComm 422 ....... [EA.128.540] WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Tsougranis (2002) 117 IR 203; [2002] NSWIRComm 282 ................................... [EA.128.450], [EA.128.540], [EA.Intro.120] WorkCover Authority of NSW v Police Service of NSW (2000) 50 NSWLR 333 ................................................................................................................. [EA.187.20] WorkCover Authority of NSW, General Manager v Law Society (NSW) [2006] NSWCA 84 ............................................................. [EA.118.330], [EA.118.360] Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Board (NSW) v Smith [2010] NSWCA 19 ......................................................................... [EA.135.150], [EA.135.180] Wotton v Queensland (No 4) [2015] FCA 1075 .................. [EA.108C.60], [EA.108C.120] Wren v Emmett Contractors Pty Ltd (1969) 43 ALJR 213 ........................... [EA.101A.90] Wright v Optus Administration Pty Ltd (No 5) [2013] NSWSC 1717 .............. [EA.87.90] Wu v Li [2015] FCAFC 109 ................................................................................ [EA.81.60]

X X v Sydney Children’s Hospitals Specialty Network (No 5) [2011] NSWSC 1351 ................................................................................................ [EA.79.330] X and X (1999) 26 Fam LR 51 ......................................................................... [EA.144.60] X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; 87 ALJR 858; [2013] HCA 29 ..................................................................... [EA.90.120], [EA.128.540] Xypolitos v The Queen [2014] VSCA 339 ......... [EA.89.90], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480]

Y Yamirr v Northern Territory (1998) 82 FCR 533 ........................... [EA.73.90], [EA.74.60] Yates Property Corp v Boland (1998) 85 FCR 84 ............................................. [EA.80.90] Ying v Song [2009] NSWSC 1344 .................................................................. [EA.128.120] Yisrael v District Court (1996) 87 A Crim R 63 ................................................ [EA.89.90] Youkhana v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 85 ............................ [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180] [All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xcv

Table of Cases

Young v Coupe [2004] NSWSC 546 ................................................................. [EA.69.210] Young v Quin (1985) 4 FCR 483 .................................................................... [EA.130.390]

Z ZL v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 325; [2010] VSCA 345 ............. [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Zaknic Pty Ltd v Svelte Corp Pty Ltd (1995) 61 FCR 171 .............................. [EA.97.450] Zanatta v McCleary [1976] 1 NSWLR 230 ................................................... [EA.129.180] Zemanek v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (unreported, FCA, Hill J, 2 October 1997) ............................................................................................... [EA.125.90] Zentai v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2010] FCA 252 ......................... [EA.122.120] Zhen Chi Chen v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 224 ............. [EA.165.210], [EA.165.360] Zhu v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 163 .......................................................... [EA.110.60] Zhu v The Queen [2013] VSCA 102 ............................................ [EA.55.330], [EA.81.60] Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; 112 A Crim R 114 ........................ [EA.81.60], [EA.165.480]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] xcvi

Uniform Evidence Law

TABLE OF STATUTES Note: Entries in the Table of Statutes for the Evidence Act 1995 are located under the heading “Commonwealth”, with the exception of those provisions that exist only in: * the NSW Evidence Act 1995, located under the heading “New South Wales” * the Victorian Evidence Act 2008, located under the heading “Victoria” * the ACT Evidence Act 2011, located under the heading “Australian Capital Territory” * the NT Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act, located under the heading “Northern Territory”

Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 15AB: [EA.Intro.240] s 29(1): [EA.160.60]

Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Act 2000 s 25: [EA.33.30], [EA.86.90], [EA.115.90], [EA.171.60], [EA.180.30] s 115(2): [EA.115.150]

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 Sch 2: [EA.138.600]

Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989: [EA.160.60]

Bail Act 1977: [EA.4.210] s 8(1): [EA.4.210] s 8(2): [EA.4.210] Pt 3.10: [EA.4.210]

ss 23C to 23E: [EA.84.150] s 23F: [EA.84.150] s 23G(3): [EA.84.150] ss 23H to 23K: [EA.84.150] s 23M: [EA.84.150] s 23N: [EA.84.150] s 23O: [EA.84.150] s 23Q: [EA.84.150] s 23V: [EA.84.150], [EA.86.120] s 23V(5): [EA.86.120] Pt 1C: [EA.139.30] Pt 1AD: [EA.41.330] Pt IC: [EA.84.150] Criminal Code Act 1995: [TAS.20] Customs Act 1901: [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60]

Electronic Transactions Act 1999: [EA.Dict.Pt.1.90]

Evidence Act 1905: [EA.69.210]

Bankruptcy Act 1966 s 81: [EA.4.150] s 81(17): [EA.4.150]

Corporations Act 2001: [EA.8.60] s 109X: [EA.160.60] s 596B: [EA.4.150] s 1305: [EA.69.600] Pt 5.9, Div 1: [EA.4.150]

Crimes Act 1900 s 80(b): [EA.80.150]

Crimes Act 1914: [EA.84.150], [EA.114.150], [EA.114.240] s 3ZM: [EA.114.120], [EA.114.240] s 3ZM(3): [EA.114.150] s 3ZM(4): [EA.114.150] s 3ZN: [EA.114.120], [EA.114.240] s 3ZO: [EA.115.240], [EA.115.300] s 3ZP: [EA.114.120], [EA.114.240], [EA.115.240], [EA.115.300] s 4G: [EA.20.90]

s s s s s s

6: [EA.156.60] 7B(1)(b): [EA.69.120] 7E: [EA.69.270] 10A: [EA.159.30] 11: [EA.157.30] 12: [EA.186.20] Evidence Act 1958: [EA.66.300] Evidence Act 1995: [EA.2.30], [EA.4.150], [EA.4.270], [EA.6.30], [EA.8.60], [EA.13.210], [EA.26.150], [EA.29.120], [EA.38.60], [EA.43.180], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.180], [EA.59.240], [EA.69.480], [EA.70.150], [EA.71.150], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150], [EA.79.240], [EA.80.60], [EA.84.60], [EA.84.150], [EA.90.60], [EA.90.240], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.110.90], [EA.114.240], [EA.118.90], [EA.126B.240], [EA.128.60], [EA.128.150], [EA.130.120], [EA.136.210], [EA.144.90], [EA.147.150], [EA.149.60], [EA.152.60], [EA.155A.30], [EA.156.150], [EA.163.30], [EA.164.180],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xcvii

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.165.480], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.120], [EA.165B.150], [EA.170.60], [EA.182.20], [EA.183.40], [EA.184.20], [EA.185.20], [EA.186.20], [EA.191.40], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.60], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.2.30], [EA.Dict.Pt.1.30], [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60], [EA.Intro.30], [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.270], [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 3: [EA.131A.120] s 3(2): [EA.3A.30] s 3(3): [EA.38.90], [EA.128.180] s 4: [EA.4.150], [EA.4.270], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.55.120], [EA.118.90], [EA.142.60], [EA.157.60] s 4(1): [EA.4.150], [EA.8.60] s 4(1)(d): [EA.4.270] s 4(2): [EA.4.270] s 4(3): [EA.4.270] s 4(4): [EA.4.270] s 4(6): [EA.4.150] s 5: [EA.4.150], [EA.8.60], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.69.480], [EA.70.60], [EA.70.150], [EA.71.150], [EA.147.150], [EA.149.60], [EA.152.60], [EA.156.150], [EA.160.120], [EA.161.150], [EA.162.90], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.60], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.2.30], [EA.183.40], [TAS.20] s 5(1): [EA.5.30], [EA.8.60] s 6: [TAS.20] s 6(1): [EA.98.450] s 7: [EA.131A.120] s 8: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.4.300], [EA.8.90], [EA.27.180], [EA.39.240], [EA.43.210], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.51.60], [EA.69.600], [EA.84.150], [EA.85.330], [EA.86.60], [EA.86.120], [EA.190.100] s 8(1): [EA.8.60], [EA.15.60], [EA.41.330] s 8(3): [EA.8.60] s 8A: [TAS.20] s 9: [EA.Intro.270], [EA.43.210], [EA.81.180] s 9(1): [EA.4.240], [EA.8.60], [EA.9.180] s 9(2): [EA.8.60], [EA.129.180] s 9(2)(a): [EA.8.60] s 9(2)(b): [EA.4.210], [EA.8.60] s 9(2)(c): [EA.8.60] s 9(3): [EA.8.60], [EA.9.60] s 11: [EA.11.90], [EA.18.180], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30],

s s

s

s s

s s s s s s

s s s s s s s s s s s s

s s s s s s s s

[EA.26.60], [EA.26.120], [EA.26.150], [EA.26.240], [EA.27.60], [EA.27.150], [EA.29.150], [EA.36.30], [EA.37.60], [EA.41.300], [EA.46.150], [EA.130.90], [EA.136.240] 11(1): [EA.11.90], [EA.26.150] 11(2): [EA.Intro.120], [EA.11.90], [EA.90.300], [EA.125.120], [EA.131.600], [EA.137.240] 12: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.8.60], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.30], [EA.13.180], [EA.13.210], [EA.18.60], [EA.126K.20], [EA.190.60] 12(b): [EA.12.60] 13: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.30], [EA.12.60], [EA.13.210], [EA.14.60], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.2.30], [EA.21.60], [EA.21.120], [EA.24.60], [EA.31.60], [EA.61.30], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] 13(1): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.13.60], [EA.13.210] 13(2): [EA.13.60], [EA.13.90], [EA.13.120], [EA.21.60] 13(2)(b): [EA.13.210] 13(3): [EA.13.210] 13(4): [EA.13.210] 13(5): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.13.180], [EA.13.210], [EA.13.270] 13(5)(a): [EA.13.210] 13(5)(b): [EA.13.210] 13(5)(c): [EA.13.210] 13(6): [EA.13.180], [EA.13.210], [EA.13.270] 13(7): [EA.13.270] 13(8): [EA.13.300] 14: [EA.13.60] 16(2): [EA.16.90] 17(2): [EA.17.60] 17(3): [EA.17.60], [EA.17.90], [EA.55.180] 17(4): [EA.17.60] 18: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.18.60], [EA.19.30], [EA.189.80], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] 18(2)(b): [EA.18.90] 18(4): [EA.18.90] 18(5): [EA.18.180] 18(6)(a): [EA.18.120] 18(6)(b): [EA.18.120] 18(7): [EA.18.120] 19: [EA.12.60], [EA.18.60], [EA.19.30] 19(c): [EA.19.30]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] xcviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 20: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.17.120], [EA.20.90], [EA.20.150], [EA.55.180], [EA.190.60] s 20(2): [EA.20.120], [EA.20.180], [EA.20.300], [EA.20.360] s 20(3): [EA.18.210], [EA.20.300], [EA.20.360] s 20(4): [EA.20.240], [EA.20.300] s 20(5): [EA.20.120], [EA.20.240] s 21: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.13.210], [EA.21.210], [EA.190.60] s 21(1): [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.21.210] s 21(4): [EA.21.150] s 22(1A): [EA.22.60] s 22(2): [EA.22.60], [EA.22.90] s 23: [EA.21.60] s 23(2): [EA.21.60] s 24(1): [EA.21.90] s 24(2): [EA.21.90] s 25: [EA.190.60], [TAS.20] s 26: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30], [EA.26.60], [EA.26.120], [EA.27.150], [EA.29.90], [EA.29.150], [EA.32.60], [EA.41.90], [EA.42.120], [EA.43.240], [EA.44.120], [EA.126K.210], [EA.190.60], [EA.192.60] s 26(a): [EA.26.150], [EA.37.60], [EA.41.300] s 26(c): [EA.26.150] s 28: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30] s 29: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30], [EA.29.150] s 29(1): [EA.27.60] s 29(2): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.29.90], [EA.55.210] s 29(2)(b): [EA.29.90] s 29(3): [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.29.60] s 29(4): [EA.29.180], [EA.48.60], [EA.48.180] s 30: [EA.13.60], [EA.13.150] s 31: [EA.13.60], [EA.13.150], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30] s 32: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30], [EA.32.90], [EA.32.210], [EA.32.330], [EA.32.360], [EA.34.60], [EA.44.150], [EA.122.390], [EA.184.20] s 32(1): [EA.32.90] s 32(2): [EA.32.90], [EA.32.150] s 32(2)(b): [EA.32.90] s 32(3): [EA.32.90] s 33: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30], [EA.33.30], [EA.33.60], [CTH.TN.10] s 33(1): [EA.33.30] s 33(2): [EA.33.30]

s 34: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30], [EA.32.330], [EA.32.360], [EA.44.150] s 34(2): [EA.32.300] s 35: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30] s 35(1): [EA.32.270], [EA.34.120] s 35(2): [EA.32.270], [EA.34.120] s 36: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30], [EA.36.30], [EA.126K.30], [EA.190.60] s 36(1): [EA.36.30] s 36(2): [EA.36.30] s 36(3): [EA.36.30] s 37: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.32.60], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.4.30], [EA.37.60], [EA.37.90], [EA.37.150], [EA.37.210], [EA.37.270], [EA.38.270], [EA.190.60] s 37(1): [EA.39.180] s 37(1)(c): [EA.37.90] s 37(3): [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.28.120], [EA.29.150] s 38: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.32.60], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.4.30], [EA.37.60], [EA.38.60], [EA.38.90], [EA.38.150], [EA.38.270], [EA.38.330], [EA.39.180], [EA.43.180], [EA.46.60], [EA.55.180], [EA.55.240], [EA.165.450], [EA.192.100], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [CTH.TN.10] s 38(1): [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.38.210], [EA.38.270], [EA.39.90], [EA.39.300] s 38(1)(a): [EA.38.60] s 38(1)(b): [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] s 38(1)(c): [EA.38.150], [EA.43.90] s 38(2): [EA.39.90] s 38(3): [EA.38.210], [EA.101A.120], [EA.102.90] s 38(4): [EA.38.270], [EA.39.300] s 38(5): [EA.38.270], [EA.39.300] s 38(6): [EA.38.150], [EA.38.240] s 38(7): [EA.38.90] s 39: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.4.30], [EA.38.270], [EA.39.90], [EA.39.180], [EA.39.300], [EA.45.150], [EA.106.300], [EA.108.90], [EA.108.210], [EA.190.60] s 39(a): [EA.39.60] s 39(b): [EA.39.120], [EA.39.150] s 39(1)(a): [EA.38.150] s 40: [EA.26.150], [EA.27.60], [EA.190.60] s 41: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.210],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

xcix

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.26.150], [EA.41.150], [EA.41.300], [EA.195.20] s 41(1): [EA.Intro.210], [EA.41.60] s 41(1)(b): [EA.26.150], [EA.41.150] s 41(1)(d): [EA.41.210] s 41(2): [EA.Intro.210], [EA.41.60], [EA.41.120], [EA.41.150] s 41(2)(a): [EA.41.240] s 41(2)(b): [EA.41.240], [EA.41.270] s 41(6): [EA.41.270], [EA.41.360] s 42: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.29.90], [EA.38.180] s 42(2): [EA.42.60] s 42(2)(a) to (c): [EA.42.60] s 42(2)(d): [EA.42.60] s 42(3): [EA.42.60] s 43: [EA.43.90], [EA.43.180], [EA.44.150], [EA.45.60], [EA.45.150], [EA.103.120], [EA.104.120], [EA.106.210] s 43(1): [EA.38.120], [EA.44.90] s 43(2): [EA.43.180], [EA.106.90] s 43(2)(a): [EA.43.180] s 43(3): [EA.43.210] s 44: [EA.45.60], [EA.45.150] s 44(2): [EA.44.90] s 44(2)(a): [EA.44.90] s 44(3): [EA.43.60], [EA.43.240], [EA.44.120], [EA.44.150] s 44(3)(d): [EA.44.120], [EA.45.150] s 45: [EA.43.150], [EA.44.180], [EA.103.120], [EA.104.120], [EA.106.210] s 45(2): [EA.43.120] s 45(3): [EA.26.150], [EA.39.240], [EA.45.120] s 45(3)(c): [EA.45.120], [EA.45.150] s 45(4): [EA.45.120] s 45(5): [EA.43.150], [EA.44.180] s 46: [EA.140.120], [EA.165.480], [EA.190.60] s 46(2): [EA.46.90] s 47: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.190.60] s 47(1): [EA.48.90], [EA.50.30] s 47(2): [EA.48.90], [EA.48.150], [EA.48.240], [EA.48.300] s 48: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.48.90], [EA.48.270], [EA.48.330], [EA.50.30], [EA.52.30], [EA.69.300] s 48(1): [EA.48.60], [EA.48.90], [EA.48.180], [EA.48.360] s 48(1)(a): [EA.48.120] s 48(1)(b): [EA.48.360] s 48(1)(c): [EA.48.180], [EA.48.360], [EA.51.60] s 48(1)(d): [EA.48.360] s 48(1)(e): [EA.48.210], [EA.48.360], [EA.69.120] s 48(1)(f): [EA.48.240]

s s s s s s s s s s s s

s s s s s s

s s s s s

s

s

48(2): [EA.48.60] 48(2)(d): [EA.48.180] 48(3): [EA.48.120] 48(4): [EA.48.60], [EA.48.270], [EA.48.300] 48(4)(a): [EA.48.90], [EA.48.360] 48(4)(b): [EA.48.270], [EA.48.360] 49: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.48.390], [EA.69.300], [CTH.TN.10] 50: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.50.30], [EA.69.300] 50(1): [EA.50.30], [CTH.TN.10] 50(2): [CTH.TN.10] 50(3): [EA.50.30] 51: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.60], [EA.48.60], [EA.51.60], [EA.190.60] 52: [EA.55.300], [EA.190.60] 53: [EA.54.60] 53(2): [EA.53.120] 53(3): [EA.53.60] 54: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.190.60] 55: [EA.Intro.90], [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.350], [EA.43.180], [EA.48.360], [EA.51.60], [EA.52.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.1.30], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.90], [EA.55.240], [EA.56.60], [EA.57.210], [EA.59.180], [EA.66A.60], [EA.69.330], [EA.78.60], [EA.79.60], [EA.80.90], [EA.89.150], [EA.97.120], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101A.60], [EA.114.60], [EA.131.510], [EA.136.150], [EA.137.90], [EA.184.20], [EA.190.60] 55(1): [EA.55.120], [EA.55.150], [EA.137.90] 55(2): [EA.55.120], [EA.55.150] 55(2)(a): [EA.43.90], [EA.55.150] 55(2)(b): [EA.81.90], [EA.142.60] 56: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.26.270], [EA.43.90], [EA.46.150], [EA.51.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.1.30], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.540], [EA.56.60], [EA.58.60], [EA.62.60], [EA.69.330], [EA.79.240], [EA.80.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.101A.60], [EA.108B.60], [EA.136.150] 56(1): [EA.Intro.120], [EA.8.60], [EA.11.90], [EA.80.60], [EA.84.60], [EA.89.90], [EA.90.300], [EA.137.240] 56(2): [EA.52.30], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.90], [EA.55.210], [EA.55.570], [EA.66.300], [EA.78.60], [EA.189.120]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] c

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 57: [EA.Intro.330], [EA.43.180], [EA.48.360], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.1.30], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.570], [EA.56.60], [EA.110.120], [EA.136.270], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30] s 57(1): [EA.57.210], [EA.58.60], [EA.69.330], [EA.142.60] s 57(1)(a): [EA.57.120] s 57(1)(b): [EA.57.120], [EA.57.180] s 57(2): [EA.57.210], [EA.87.120], [EA.87.180] s 58: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.1.30], [EA.69.540], [EA.190.60] s 58(1): [EA.57.120] s 59: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.32.180], [EA.38.150], [EA.48.180], [EA.48.360], [EA.55.540], [EA.56.90], [EA.59.90], [EA.59.210], [EA.59.240], [EA.60.60], [EA.61.90], [EA.63.90], [EA.64.90], [EA.64.330], [EA.65.90], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.240], [EA.66.90], [EA.66A.60], [EA.69.210], [EA.69.330], [EA.76.90], [EA.79.240], [EA.79.270], [EA.81.60], [EA.81.90], [EA.81.240], [EA.95.60], [EA.97.60], [EA.98.60], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.150], [EA.101A.180], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.115.90], [EA.136.60], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.450], [EA.190.60], [EA.191.40] s 59(1): [EA.59.210] s 59(2): [EA.64.330], [EA.65.150], [EA.69.210] s 59(2A): [EA.59.210] s 60: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.38.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.43.180], [EA.56.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.1.30], [EA.59.180], [EA.60.60], [EA.60.90], [EA.60.150], [EA.62.60], [EA.64.330], [EA.65.240], [EA.65.330], [EA.77.60], [EA.79.270], [EA.81.240], [EA.82.30], [EA.91.60], [EA.95.60], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.150], [EA.106.210], [EA.108.120], [EA.108.150], [EA.108.210], [EA.136.60], [EA.136.150], [EA.136.180], [EA.165.270] s 60(1): [EA.60.90] s 60(2): [EA.60.60], [EA.62.60] s 60(3): [EA.60.60], [EA.60.90]

s s s s s

s s

s s s s

s s

s s

s s

s

s s s s

s s

s s s s

61: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30] 61(2): [EA.61.90] 61(3): [EA.61.60] 62: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.64.330] 62(1): [EA.62.90], [EA.63.60], [EA.63.90], [EA.64.90], [EA.64.120], [EA.65.90], [EA.65.300], [EA.66.90] 62(3): [EA.62.90] 63: [EA.13.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.90], [EA.63.90], [EA.63.240], [EA.64.90], [EA.66.90], [EA.135.150] 63(2): [EA.64.330], [EA.67.90], [CTH.TN.10] 63(2)(b): [EA.63.60], [EA.63.120], [EA.64.330] 63(3): [EA.64.330] 64: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.64.90], [EA.64.360], [EA.65.90], [EA.66.90], [EA.135.150] 64(1): [EA.64.300] 64(2): [EA.13.90], [EA.64.270], [EA.64.330], [EA.67.60], [EA.67.90], [EA.68.90], [CTH.TN.10] 64(2)(b): [EA.64.120], [EA.64.210], [EA.64.330] 64(3): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.32.240], [EA.64.330], [EA.65.60], [EA.81.270] 64(4): [EA.64.300], [EA.64.330] 65: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.65.90], [EA.65.360], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] 65(2): [EA.62.60], [EA.65.120], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.210], [EA.65.240], [EA.65.330], [EA.67.90], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30], [CTH.TN.10] 65(2)(b): [EA.Intro.120], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.81.240] 65(2)(c): [EA.65.150], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.240] 65(2)(d): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.65.180], [EA.65.240] 65(3): [EA.62.60], [EA.65.270], [EA.67.90], [EA.165.270], [CTH.TN.10] 65(7): [EA.65.240] 65(8): [EA.62.60], [EA.65.60], [EA.65.330], [EA.67.90], [CTH.TN.10] 65(8)(a): [EA.65.330] 65(8)(b): [EA.65.300], [EA.65.330] 65(9): [EA.65.330] 66: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.32.150],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

ci

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.59.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.66.60], [EA.66.90], [EA.66.180], [EA.66.300], [EA.102.90], [EA.108.60], [EA.108.150], [EA.108.210], [EA.136.150], [EA.137.120] s 66(2): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.32.240], [EA.66.60], [EA.66.180], [EA.66.210], [EA.81.270], [EA.83.60] s 66(2)(b): [EA.Intro.120] s 66(2A): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.66.180] s 66(2A)(a): [EA.66.180] s 66(3): [EA.66.60], [EA.66.210] s 66(4): [EA.66.60], [EA.66.240] s 66A: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.61.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.62.60], [EA.62.90], [EA.67.60], [EA.72.60] s 67: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.63.150], [EA.64.240], [EA.65.120], [EA.65.240], [EA.65.270], [EA.65.300], [EA.67.60], [EA.100.60], [CTH.TN.10] s 67(1): [EA.167.30], [CTH.TN.10] s 67(2): [CTH.TN.10] s 67(3): [CTH.TN.10] s 67(4): [EA.67.90], [CTH.TN.10] s 67(5): [EA.67.90], [CTH.TN.10] s 68: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.64.270], [CTH.TN.10] s 68(4): [EA.68.60] s 69: [EA.48.210], [EA.48.360], [EA.58.60], [EA.69.60], [EA.69.210], [EA.69.330], [EA.69.390], [EA.69.480], [EA.69.510], [EA.69.570], [EA.142.60], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30], [EA.169.60], [EA.169.90] s 69(1): [EA.69.60], [EA.69.210] s 69(1)(a)(i): [EA.69.120] s 69(2): [EA.69.60], [EA.69.180], [EA.69.540] s 69(2)(a): [EA.69.180], [EA.69.210] s 69(2)(b): [EA.69.180], [EA.69.210] s 69(3): [EA.69.240], [EA.69.540] s 69(3)(a): [EA.69.240] s 69(3)(b): [EA.69.240] s 69(5): [EA.69.180], [EA.69.210] s 70: [EA.70.210] s 70(1): [EA.70.150], [EA.70.180], [EA.71.150] s 70(2): [EA.70.60], [EA.70.180] s 71: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.71.150], [EA.71.180], [EA.161.120], [EA.162.60]

s 72: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.59.180], [EA.62.60], [EA.62.90], [EA.66A.60], [EA.72.60] s 73: [EA.74.90] s 73(1): [EA.73.60] s 73(2): [EA.73.150] s 73(2)(a): [EA.73.120] s 73(2)(b): [EA.73.120] s 73(3): [EA.73.120] s 74(1): [EA.74.90] s 75: [EA.75.90], [EA.75.120], [EA.189.60] s 76: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.48.180], [EA.55.540], [EA.56.90], [EA.75.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.3.30], [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.77.60], [EA.78.60], [EA.79.300], [EA.85.210], [EA.97.60], [EA.98.60], [EA.101A.60], [EA.108C.90], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.114.60], [EA.136.60] s 77: [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.77.60], [EA.80.60], [EA.101A.150], [EA.136.60] s 78: [EA.48.180], [EA.50.30], [EA.55.540], [EA.66A.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.3.30], [EA.76.90], [EA.76.150], [EA.77.60], [EA.78.60], [EA.80.60], [EA.80.150], [EA.86.60], [EA.108C.60] s 78A: [EA.Intro.180] s 79: [EA.13.300], [EA.48.180], [EA.55.270], [EA.60.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.3.30], [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.78.60], [EA.79.60], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.150], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240], [EA.79.330], [EA.79.420], [EA.80.60], [EA.80.90], [EA.80.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.106.240], [EA.108C.60], [EA.108C.90], [EA.108C.180], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.183.80] s 79(1): [EA.79.90], [EA.79.120] s 79(2): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.79.480] s 80: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.3.30], [EA.79.120], [EA.79.480], [EA.80.60], [EA.80.90] s 80(a): [EA.80.90] s 80(b): [EA.79.180], [EA.80.150] s 81: [EA.60.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.90], [EA.62.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30], [EA.82.30], [EA.83.60], [EA.85.210], [EA.89.90], [EA.101A.180], [EA.184.20], [EA.191.40] s 81(1): [EA.60.90], [EA.81.240], [EA.81.270], [EA.83.60]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 81(2): [EA.81.240], [EA.81.270] s 81(2)(b): [EA.81.240] s 82: [EA.60.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.90], [EA.62.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30], [EA.81.60] s 83: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30], [EA.81.60], [EA.81.180] s 83(1): [EA.83.60] s 83(2): [EA.83.60] s 83(3): [EA.83.60] s 83(4)(a): [EA.84.120] s 83(4)(b): [EA.84.120] s 84: [EA.Intro.330], [EA.56.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.81.90], [EA.83.60], [EA.84.60], [EA.84.150], [EA.90.60], [EA.101A.60] s 84(1): [EA.84.60], [EA.84.90], [EA.84.120] s 84(1)(a): [EA.84.60] s 84(2): [EA.84.90], [EA.84.120] s 85: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.55.330], [EA.56.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.81.90], [EA.83.60], [EA.84.60], [EA.84.150], [EA.85.150], [EA.85.210], [EA.90.60], [EA.90.90], [EA.90.150], [EA.90.240], [EA.101A.60] s 85(1): [EA.85.60], [EA.85.150], [EA.85.210], [EA.89.90], [EA.90.60] s 85(1)(a): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.85.120], [EA.85.150], [EA.85.210], [EA.85.270], [EA.85.300], [EA.89.90], [EA.139.60], [EA.165.420] s 85(1)(b): [EA.85.120], [EA.85.150], [EA.85.210], [EA.85.270], [EA.85.300] s 85(2): [EA.85.60], [EA.85.210], [EA.85.270], [EA.85.300], [EA.165.270], [EA.189.140] s 85(3): [EA.85.60], [EA.85.210] s 85(3)(a): [EA.85.210] s 86: [EA.81.90], [EA.86.120], [EA.101A.60] s 86(4): [EA.86.60] s 87: [EA.Intro.340], [EA.57.210], [EA.60.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30], [EA.81.180], [EA.83.60], [EA.87.60], [EA.87.120], [EA.142.60] s 87(1): [EA.87.150], [EA.87.210] s 87(1)(a): [EA.87.90] s 87(1)(b): [EA.87.90] s 87(1)(c): [EA.87.120], [EA.87.180] s 87(2): [EA.87.90], [EA.87.180] s 88: [EA.81.60], [EA.81.90], [EA.85.210], [EA.90.90], [EA.142.60]

s 89: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.55.570], [EA.56.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30], [EA.81.60], [EA.114.150], [EA.128.690] s 89(1): [EA.89.150] s 89(1)(a): [EA.89.90] s 89(2): [EA.89.150] s 89(3): [EA.89.150] s 89A: [EA.89.60], [EA.89A.60] s 89A(1): [EA.89A.60] s 89A(2)(a): [EA.89A.60] s 89A(2)(b): [EA.89A.60] s 89A(2)(c): [EA.89A.60] s 89A(2)(d): [EA.89A.60] s 89A(5)(a): [EA.89A.60] s 89A(5)(b): [EA.89A.60] s 90: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.81.60], [EA.83.60], [EA.84.60], [EA.84.150], [EA.90.60], [EA.90.90], [EA.114.240], [EA.137.240], [EA.138.270], [EA.138.300], [EA.138.390], [EA.139.30] s 91: [EA.56.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.5.30], [EA.91.60], [EA.92.90], [EA.101A.60], [EA.125.180], [EA.135.150], [EA.178.30] ss 91 to 93: [EA.157.60] s 91(1): [EA.91.60] s 92: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.5.30], [EA.91.60], [EA.178.30] s 92(1): [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.5.30], [EA.92.60] s 92(2): [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.5.30], [EA.92.60], [EA.92.150], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30] s 93: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.5.30], [EA.91.60], [EA.178.30] s 93(c): [EA.Intro.120] s 94: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.6.30], [EA.94.60], [EA.97.330], [EA.98.330] s 94(1): [EA.98.60], [EA.101.120] s 94(2): [EA.4.210], [EA.4.270] s 94(3): [EA.101.150] s 95: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.6.30], [EA.94.60], [EA.97.270], [EA.98.270], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.360], [EA.110.90] s 95(1): [EA.97.60] s 95(2): [EA.101.60] s 97: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.340], [EA.56.90], [EA.92.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.6.30], [EA.94.60], [EA.97.60], [EA.97.180], [EA.97.300], [EA.97.450], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.120], [EA.98.180], [EA.98.300], [EA.98.360], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.90], [EA.101.120],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

ciii

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.270], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.210], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60], [EA.137.120], [CTH.TN.10] s 97(1): [EA.97.60], [EA.97.180], [EA.101.90], [EA.101.150], [EA.110.90] s 97(1)(a): [EA.97.120], [EA.97.180], [EA.97.300] s 97(1)(b): [EA.97.300], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.120], [EA.101.240], [EA.137.90] s 97(2): [EA.97.120], [EA.97.180], [EA.97.300] s 97(2)(b): [EA.97.240] s 98: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.56.90], [EA.92.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.6.30], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.450], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.60], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.120], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.270], [EA.101A.60], [EA.110.90], [CTH.TN.10] s 98(1): [EA.98.60], [EA.98.90], [EA.98.180], [EA.101.120] s 98(1)(a): [EA.98.180], [EA.98.300] s 98(1)(b): [EA.97.150], [EA.98.150], [EA.98.300], [EA.137.90] s 98(2): [EA.98.300] s 98(3): [EA.98.180], [EA.98.300] s 99: [EA.97.180], [EA.98.180], [EA.100.60], [CTH.TN.10] s 100: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.6.30], [EA.97.180], [EA.98.180], [CTH.TN.10] s 101: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.Intro.340], [EA.79.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.6.30], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.390], [EA.97.450], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.120], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.450], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60], [EA.137.180], [EA.137.210], [EA.138.720] s 101(2): [EA.101.60], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.240], [EA.101.450], [EA.110.90] s 101(3): [EA.101.270], [EA.101.330], [EA.110.90] s 101(4): [EA.101.270], [EA.101.330] s 101(b)(ii): [EA.112.60] s 101A: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.66.60], [EA.94.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.101A.60], [EA.102.60], [EA.103.120], [EA.104.60],

s s s s

s

s s s s

s s s s s s s s s s

s

[EA.104.150], [EA.104.210], [EA.106.60], [EA.106.90], [EA.108.60], [EA.108A.60], [EA.108B.60], [EA.108C.60], [EA.112.60] 101A(a): [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.120] 101A(b): [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.120], [EA.112.60] 101A(b)(ii): [EA.101A.210], [EA.104.60] 102: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.180], [EA.38.210], [EA.39.150], [EA.65.240], [EA.66.60], [EA.66.300], [EA.101.120], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.120], [EA.103.60], [EA.104.60], [EA.106.60], [EA.108.150], [EA.108.210], [EA.108A.60], [EA.108C.60], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60], [EA.136.150], [EA.192.100] 103: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Intro.180], [EA.43.180], [EA.79.180], [EA.101.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.102.90], [EA.103.60], [EA.104.60], [EA.104.120], [EA.104.150], [EA.104.180], [EA.104.240], [EA.106.90], [EA.108A.60], [EA.108B.60], [EA.108C.120], [EA.112.60], [EA.128.540] 103(1): [EA.103.60], [EA.103.120] 103(2): [EA.103.120] 103(2)(a): [EA.106.270] 104: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.101A.90], [EA.104.120], [EA.104.180], [EA.106.90], [EA.108B.60], [EA.112.60] 104(2): [EA.101A.90], [EA.104.180], [EA.104.240], [EA.112.60] 104(3): [EA.101A.90], [EA.104.60], [EA.104.120], [EA.104.150] 104(3)(a): [EA.104.120] 104(3)(b): [EA.106.240] 104(4): [EA.104.60], [EA.104.90], [EA.104.150], [EA.104.240] 104(4)(b): [EA.104.180] 104(5): [EA.104.150], [EA.104.180] 104(6): [EA.104.60], [EA.104.90], [EA.104.210] 105: [EA.105.60] 106: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.101A.120], [EA.102.90], [EA.103.90], [EA.106.60], [EA.106.90], [EA.106.240], [EA.108.60] 106(1): [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.106.90], [EA.106.150], [EA.106.240], [EA.106.270]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] civ

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 106(1)(a): [EA.106.60], [EA.106.120] s 106(1)(a)(i): [EA.106.90] s 106(1)(a)(ii): [EA.106.90] s 106(1)(b): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.106.60] s 106(2): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.103.90], [EA.106.60], [EA.106.120], [EA.106.270] s 106(2)(a): [EA.106.90] s 106(2)(c): [EA.106.90] s 106(2)(e): [EA.103.90], [EA.106.90] s 108: [EA.37.150], [EA.38.210], [EA.39.150], [EA.39.210], [EA.81.270], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.101A.150], [EA.102.90], [EA.108.150], [EA.136.150] s 108(1): [EA.106.300], [EA.108C.90] s 108(3): [EA.102.90], [EA.108.90], [EA.108.150], [EA.108.180], [EA.165.480], [EA.192.100] s 108(3)(a): [EA.108.120], [EA.108.180] s 108(3)(b): [EA.65.150], [EA.108.60], [EA.108.120], [EA.108.180], [EA.108.210] s 108A: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.55.150], [EA.63.210], [EA.64.420], [EA.65.420], [EA.67.60], [EA.69.420], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.101A.90], [EA.101A.180], [EA.102.60], [EA.108.120], [EA.108.150], [EA.108A.60], [EA.108A.90], [EA.108B.60], [EA.108C.180] s 108A(1): [EA.108A.60] s 108A(1)(a): [EA.108B.60] s 108A(2): [EA.108A.60] s 108B: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.55.150], [EA.63.210], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.101A.180], [EA.102.60], [EA.108A.60], [EA.108A.90], [EA.108B.60], [EA.108C.180] s 108B(3): [EA.108B.60] s 108B(3)(c): [EA.108B.60] s 108B(4): [EA.108B.60] s 108B(6): [EA.108B.60] s 108C: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.102.90], [EA.106.240], [EA.108.60], [EA.137.60] s 108C(1): [EA.108C.60], [EA.108C.90] s 108C(1)(b)(ii): [EA.103.60], [EA.108C.120] s 108C(2): [EA.108C.90] s 108C(2)(a): [EA.108C.90] s 108C(2)(b): [EA.108C.90] s 110: [EA.97.330], [EA.101.270], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.7.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.8.30], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.110.120], [EA.112.60]

s 110(2): [EA.110.90], [EA.110.120], [EA.112.60] s 110(3): [EA.110.90], [EA.110.120], [EA.112.60] s 111: [EA.97.330], [EA.101.270], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.8.30] s 112: [EA.104.180], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.8.30], [EA.110.90], [EA.112.60], [EA.190.60], [EA.192.40], [EA.192.100] s 113: [EA.Ch3.Pt.3.9.30], [EA.116.90], [EA.190.60], [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 114: [EA.56.90], [EA.Ch3.Pt.3.9.30], [EA.114.60], [EA.114.90], [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240], [EA.114.330], [EA.115.60], [EA.115.90], [EA.115.300], [EA.116.90], [TAS.20] s 114(2): [EA.114.150], [EA.114.180], [EA.115.240] s 114(2)(a): [EA.114.180] s 114(2)(b): [EA.114.180] s 114(2)(c): [EA.114.60] s 114(3): [EA.114.60], [EA.114.180] s 114(3)(c): [EA.114.180] s 114(3)(c)(i): [EA.114.150] s 114(3)(d): [EA.114.180] s 114(4): [EA.114.60], [EA.114.180] s 114(5): [EA.114.60], [EA.114.150] s 114(6): [EA.114.60], [EA.114.180] s 115: [EA.56.90], [EA.Ch3.Pt.3.9.30], [EA.114.90], [EA.114.180], [EA.114.330], [EA.115.60], [EA.115.90], [EA.115.300], [EA.116.90], [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 115(2): [EA.115.60] s 115(3): [EA.114.240], [EA.115.60] s 115(3)(b): [EA.115.240] s 115(4): [EA.115.60] s 115(5): [EA.114.240], [EA.115.60] s 115(5)(a): [EA.114.150] s 115(7): [EA.116.180] s 115(7)(a): [EA.115.330] s 115(7)(b): [EA.115.330] s 115(8): [EA.115.60] s 115(10)(a): [EA.114.90], [EA.115.90] s 115(10)(b): [EA.115.60] s 116: [EA.Intro.350], [EA.37.120], [EA.Ch3.Pt.3.9.30], [EA.114.60], [EA.114.90], [EA.114.120], [EA.114.270], [EA.115.330], [EA.116.90], [EA.116.120], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.300], [EA.190.60] s 117: [EA.117.90], [EA.118.210], [EA.118.240], [EA.118.270], [EA.119.180], [EA.120.90], [EA.121.90], [EA.122.240],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cv

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.122.300], [EA.123.120], [EA.124.60], [EA.125.90], [EA.190.60] s 117(1): [EA.117.90], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.210] s 117(1)(b): [EA.122.90], [EA.122.210] s 118: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.350], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1.30], [EA.117.90], [EA.118.90], [EA.118.210], [EA.118.480], [EA.118.540], [EA.119.60], [EA.119.180], [EA.120.60], [EA.122.120], [EA.122.360], [EA.123.120], [EA.124.60] s 118(a): [EA.118.210], [EA.118.270], [EA.118.300] s 118(b): [EA.118.210], [EA.118.270], [EA.118.300] s 118(c): [EA.118.60], [EA.118.210], [EA.118.480] ss 118 to 119: [EA.122.60], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120] ss 118 to 120: [EA.121.60], [EA.122.60], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.123.60], [EA.123.90], [EA.125.60], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120] s 119: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1.30], [EA.117.90], [EA.118.60], [EA.118.210], [EA.118.420], [EA.118.480], [EA.119.180], [EA.120.60], [EA.122.120], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.330], [EA.122.360], [EA.124.60] s 119(b): [EA.119.180] s 120: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1.30], [EA.120.60], [EA.122.60], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.120], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120] s 121: [EA.121.180], [EA.121.210], [EA.125.150], [EA.131.60] s 121(3): [EA.118.420] ss 121 to 126: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1.30], [EA.118.510] s 122: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.117.90], [EA.118.210], [EA.118.240], [EA.122.60], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.270], [EA.122.330], [EA.122.360], [EA.122.450], [EA.126.60], [EA.128.450], [EA.131.60], [EA.131.390]

s 122(1): [EA.122.60], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.180], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.330], [EA.126C.30] s 122(2): [EA.122.60], [EA.122.90], [EA.122.120], [EA.122.180], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.270], [EA.122.300], [EA.122.330], [EA.131.390] s 122(3): [EA.122.180], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.300] s 122(3)(a): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240] s 122(3)(b): [EA.122.240] s 122(4): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240] s 122(5): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.360] s 122(5)(a)(i): [EA.122.180], [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240] s 122(5)(a)(ii): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240] s 122(5)(a)(iv): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240] s 122(5)(a)(iii): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.330] s 122(5)(b): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.360] s 122(5)(c): [EA.122.210], [EA.122.240], [EA.122.360] s 122(6): [EA.32.210], [EA.33.60], [EA.34.90] s 123: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.118.90], [EA.122.480], [EA.123.90], [EA.123.150], [EA.123.180], [EA.126B.90], [EA.126B.240], [EA.130.90], [EA.131.60], [EA.131.90], [EA.131A.60], [EA.131A.90], [EA.131A.150] s 124: [EA.122.360], [EA.124.90], [EA.124.120], [EA.131.60] s 124(1): [EA.124.60] s 125: [EA.118.360], [EA.121.150], [EA.125.90], [EA.125.180], [EA.131.60], [EA.131.570], [EA.131.600] s 125(1): [EA.125.90] s 125(1)(a): [EA.125.90], [EA.126D.30], [NSW.CP.760] s 125(1)(b): [EA.125.90], [EA.125.120] s 125(2): [EA.91.60], [EA.125.180], [EA.142.60] s 125(3): [EA.125.120] s 126: [EA.121.180], [EA.122.450], [EA.123.150], [EA.124.90], [EA.125.150], [EA.126.60], [EA.126D.60], [EA.131.60], [EA.131.390], [NSW.CP.780] s 126(1): [EA.126K.30] s 126(4)(e): [EA.126B.120] s 126A(1): [EA.126B.120]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 126B: [EA.126B.240], [EA.126B.270], [EA.126B.390], [EA.126C.30], [EA.126D.30] s 126B(1): [EA.126B.90], [EA.126B.360] s 126B(3): [EA.126B.60], [EA.126B.90], [EA.126B.420] s 126B(4): [EA.126B.150] s 126B(4)(f): [EA.126B.120] s 126B(5): [EA.126B.420] s 126C: [EA.126B.270] s 126D: [EA.126D.60] s 126D(2): [EA.126D.90] s 126F(3): [EA.126B.60] s 126G: [TAS.20] s 126H: [EA.131A.60], [EA.131A.90], [TAS.20] s 126H(1): [EA.126K.390], [EA.131A.90] s 126H(2)(b): [EA.126K.330] s 126H(3)(c): [EA.126B.60] s 126J: [EA.126K.60], [EA.126K.90] s 126J(1): [EA.126J.30] s 126J(2): [EA.126J.30] s 126K: [EA.126K.30], [EA.126K.90], [EA.131A.90] s 126K(1): [EA.126K.210], [EA.126K.420], [EA.131A.90] s 126K(2): [EA.126K.210], [EA.126K.390], [EA.126K.420], [EA.131A.90] s 126K(2)(a): [EA.126K.210], [EA.126K.390] s 126K(2)(b): [EA.126K.210], [EA.126K.390] s 126K(3): [EA.126K.210] s 126HK(1): [EA.126K.30] s 127: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30] s 128: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.4.150], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.118.90], [EA.126B.90], [EA.128.120], [EA.128.180], [EA.128.330], [EA.128.360], [EA.128.420], [EA.128.450], [EA.128.510], [EA.128.570], [EA.128.600], [EA.128.660], [EA.128.690], [EA.128.720], [EA.128A.90], [EA.128A.180], [EA.130.90], [EA.131.90], [EA.131.180], [EA.131A.60], [EA.131A.90], [EA.131A.150], [EA.187.20] s 128(1): [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.128.90], [EA.128.120], [EA.128.150], [EA.128.420], [EA.128.660], [EA.128.690], [EA.128.750] s 128(1)(a): [EA.128.360] s 128(1)(b): [EA.128.360] s 128(2): [EA.128.90], [EA.128.180], [EA.128.360], [EA.128.540], [EA.128.660], [EA.128.750], [EA.128A.270]

s 128(3): [EA.128.90], [EA.128.390], [EA.128.660], [EA.128.750] s 128(4): [EA.128.90], [EA.128.180], [EA.128.390], [EA.128.660], [EA.128.750] s 128(4)(a): [EA.128.480] s 128(4)(b): [EA.128A.120], [EA.128.360], [EA.128.480], [EA.128.540], [EA.128A.120] s 128(5): [EA.128.660] s 128(6): [EA.128.120], [EA.128.390], [EA.128.660] s 128(6)(a): [EA.128A.270] s 128(7): [EA.Intro.270], [EA.128.90], [EA.128.540], [EA.128.600], [EA.128.660] s 128(8): [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.270], [EA.128.660], [EA.128.720] s 128(9): [EA.128.600] s 128(10): [EA.128.690] s 128A: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.210], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.128A.150], [EA.128A.240], [EA.131A.150], [EA.187.20] s 128A(1): [EA.128A.60], [EA.128A.90] s 128A(2)(d): [EA.128A.120], [EA.128A.270] s 128A(2)(e): [EA.128A.270] s 128A(6): [EA.128A.270] s 128A(7): [EA.128A.120], [EA.128A.270] s 128A(8): [EA.128A.60], [EA.128A.120], [EA.128A.210], [EA.128A.240] s 128A(9): [EA.128A.180], [EA.128A.270] s 128A(10): [EA.128A.120], [EA.128A.240] s 129: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.129.90], [EA.129.180], [EA.157.60] s 129(1): [EA.129.90] s 129(3): [EA.157.60] s 129(5): [EA.129.90], [EA.129.180] s 129(5)(a): [EA.129.60] s 129(5)(c): [EA.129.180] s 130: [EA.7.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.130.120], [EA.130.150], [EA.130.240], [EA.130.390], [EA.131A.90], [EA.131A.120] s 130(1): [EA.130.60], [EA.130.90], [EA.130.150], [EA.130.180], [EA.130.210], [EA.130.360], [EA.130.390], [EA.131A.120] s 130(2): [EA.130.390], [EA.131A.120] s 130(3): [EA.130.390] s 130(4): [EA.130.120], [EA.130.150], [EA.130.180] s 130(5): [EA.128.540], [EA.130.60], [EA.130.210] s 130(5)(a): [EA.130.240] s 131: [EA.11.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cvii

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.131.60], [EA.131.150], [EA.131.330], [EA.131.360], [EA.131.570] s 131(1): [EA.131.60], [EA.131.120], [EA.131.150], [EA.131.270], [EA.131.300], [EA.131.330], [EA.131.480], [EA.131.510], [EA.131.540], [EA.131.570] s 131(1)(a): [EA.131.240], [EA.131.300] s 131(1)(b): [EA.131.120], [EA.131.240] s 131(2): [EA.131.390] s 131(2)(a): [EA.131.240] s 131(2)(b): [EA.131.390] s 131(2)(c): [EA.131.60], [EA.131.390] s 131(2)(d): [EA.131.420] s 131(2)(e): [EA.131.60] s 131(2)(f): [EA.131.450] s 131(2)(g): [EA.131.60], [EA.131.480] s 131(2)(h): [EA.131.420], [EA.131.510] s 131(2)(i): [EA.121.150], [EA.131.540] s 131(2)(j): [EA.125.90], [EA.131.540], [EA.131.570] s 131(2)(k): [EA.125.120] s 131(5)(b): [EA.131.270], [EA.131.360] s 131(5)(c): [EA.131.180] s 131(5)(d): [EA.131.390] s 131A: [EA.7.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.118.90], [EA.122.330], [EA.123.90], [EA.126B.90], [EA.126K.20], [EA.126K.30], [EA.126K.150], [EA.126K.420], [EA.128.150], [EA.130.90], [EA.130.360], [EA.131.90], [EA.131A.60], [EA.131A.90], [EA.131B.30] s 131A(1): [EA.131A.60], [EA.131B.30] s 131A(1)(a): [EA.131A.60] s 131A(2): [EA.131A.60], [EA.131A.90] s 131H: [EA.131A.60], [EA.131B.30] s 131H(1): [EA.131A.60] s 132: [EA.118.120], [EA.118.570], [EA.126B.420], [EA.128.120], [EA.128.420], [EA.128.780], [EA.130.390], [EA.131.630] s 132(2)(k): [EA.11.90] s 133: [EA.118.570], [EA.121.240], [EA.122.510], [EA.123.210], [EA.124.150], [EA.125.210], [EA.126B.420], [EA.126D.120], [EA.130.390], [EA.131.630], [EA.131A.90] s 134: [EA.56.90], [EA.126B.90], [EA.129.150], [EA.130.90], [EA.131.90], [EA.190.60] s 135: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.270], [EA.13.240], [EA.18.120], [EA.29.90], [EA.29.120], [EA.29.180], [EA.37.60], [EA.38.150], [EA.48.180],

[EA.53.90], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.120], [EA.55.210], [EA.55.240], [EA.55.300], [EA.55.330], [EA.56.60], [EA.57.120], [EA.57.150], [EA.59.240], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.120], [EA.64.150], [EA.64.300], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.60], [EA.69.600], [EA.75.60], [EA.79.60], [EA.79.180], [EA.79.240], [EA.79.300], [EA.79.330], [EA.80.90], [EA.80.150], [EA.81.240], [EA.87.60], [EA.97.270], [EA.97.450], [EA.98.270], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.104.60], [EA.108B.60], [EA.108C.60], [EA.108C.90], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.111.60], [EA.112.60], [EA.114.240], [EA.126B.60], [EA.131.570], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.11.30], [EA.135.90], [EA.135.120], [EA.135.150], [EA.135.210], [EA.135.270], [EA.136.60], [EA.136.90], [EA.136.120], [EA.136.300], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.90], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.150], [EA.184.20], [EA.189.120], [EA.190.60], [EA.192.40] s 135(a): [EA.135.150], [EA.135.270], [EA.137.120] s 135(b): [EA.135.270] s 135(c): [EA.135.270] ss 135 to 137: [EA.104.180], [EA.108.90] ss 135 to 138: [EA.69.570] s 136: [EA.Intro.270], [EA.29.90], [EA.46.150], [EA.48.180], [EA.56.60], [EA.60.60], [EA.60.120], [EA.60.150], [EA.64.330], [EA.65.240], [EA.66.60], [EA.76.120], [EA.77.60], [EA.79.270], [EA.81.240], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.120], [EA.101A.150], [EA.102.90], [EA.106.210], [EA.108.120], [EA.108.150], [EA.108.210], [EA.108C.90], [EA.110.60], [EA.110.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.11.30], [EA.135.90], [EA.135.150], [EA.136.60], [EA.136.150], [EA.136.180], [EA.136.270], [EA.136.300], [EA.137.150], [EA.165.480], [EA.189.120] s 137: [EA.Intro.270], [EA.Intro.300], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.Intro.350],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.13.240], [EA.17.60], [EA.18.120], [EA.29.180], [EA.37.270], [EA.38.150], [EA.48.180], [EA.53.90], [EA.55.240], [EA.55.330], [EA.56.60], [EA.57.150], [EA.60.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.120], [EA.64.300], [EA.65.240], [EA.65.270], [EA.66.300], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.60], [EA.78.60], [EA.79.60], [EA.79.300], [EA.79.330], [EA.80.90], [EA.80.150], [EA.81.240], [EA.97.120], [EA.97.270], [EA.97.450], [EA.98.120], [EA.98.270], [EA.101.60], [EA.101.150], [EA.101.180], [EA.101.450], [EA.104.60], [EA.108B.60], [EA.108C.60], [EA.108C.90], [EA.110.90], [EA.111.60], [EA.112.60], [EA.114.180], [EA.114.240], [EA.115.300], [EA.126B.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.11.30], [EA.135.90], [EA.135.150], [EA.135.270], [EA.135.300], [EA.136.60], [EA.136.300], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.90], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.210], [EA.137.240], [EA.138.450], [EA.138.720], [EA.144.90], [EA.184.20], [EA.192.40], [TAS.10] s 138: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.8.60], [EA.37.270], [EA.56.60], [EA.83.60], [EA.84.60], [EA.84.150], [EA.90.60], [EA.90.90], [EA.90.150], [EA.90.210], [EA.90.260], [EA.90.300], [EA.114.240], [EA.115.300], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.11.30], [EA.135.150], [EA.137.120], [EA.137.240], [EA.138.150], [EA.138.270], [EA.138.300], [EA.138.420], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570], [EA.138.690], [EA.138.720], [EA.139.30], [TAS.10] s 138(1): [EA.114.240], [EA.138.60], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.270], [EA.138.330], [EA.138.420], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.690], [EA.138.720] s 138(1)(a): [EA.138.120] s 138(1)(b): [EA.138.150] s 138(2): [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.11.30], [EA.138.120] s 138(2)(a): [EA.138.360] s 138(2)(b): [EA.138.390]

s 138(3): [EA.114.240], [EA.138.210], [EA.138.270], [EA.138.420], [EA.138.690], [EA.138.720] s 138(3)(d): [EA.138.690] s 138(3)(e): [EA.138.120], [EA.138.540], [EA.138.570] s 138(5)(a): [EA.138.120] s 139: [EA.90.150], [EA.138.120], [EA.190.60] s 139(1): [EA.139.60] s 139(1)(a): [EA.139.120], [EA.139.180] s 139(1)(b): [EA.139.60] s 139(2): [EA.139.60] s 139(2)(a): [EA.139.60] s 139(3): [EA.139.150] s 139(5): [EA.139.120] s 139(5)(a): [EA.139.120], [EA.139.180] s 139(5)(b): [EA.139.180] s 139(5)(c): [EA.139.180] s 139(6): [EA.139.120] s 140: [EA.Intro.330], [EA.51.60], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.1.30], [EA.140.60], [EA.190.60] s 140(1): [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] s 140(2): [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] s 140(2)(a): [EA.140.60], [EA.140.120] s 141: [EA.8.60], [EA.137.120], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.1.30], [EA.141.90] s 141(1): [EA.135.270] s 142: [EA.48.90], [EA.48.270], [EA.48.360], [EA.66.180], [EA.79.60], [EA.81.90], [EA.87.150], [EA.89A.60], [EA.125.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.1.30], [EA.165.330], [EA.165A.150] s 142(1): [EA.13.270], [EA.48.210], [EA.48.240], [EA.48.270], [EA.48.300], [EA.59.210], [EA.61.60], [EA.69.540], [EA.84.120], [EA.85.300], [EA.90.330], [EA.118.540], [EA.121.210], [EA.122.480], [EA.123.180], [EA.124.120], [EA.126B.390], [EA.126D.90], [EA.126K.390], [EA.128.750], [EA.130.360], [NSW.CP.800] s 142(2): [EA.142.60] s 143: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.2.30] s 143(1): [EA.143.60] s 143(2): [EA.143.60] s 144: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.79.60], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.2.30], [EA.144.60], [EA.146.60], [EA.157.60] s 144(1): [EA.144.120] s 144(4): [EA.144.90], [EA.144.120] s 145: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.2.30] s 146: [EA.57.150], [EA.69.360], [EA.146.60] s 146(2): [EA.142.60]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cix

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont ss 146 to 152: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.30] s 147: [EA.57.150], [EA.69.360], [EA.146.60], [EA.147.150], [EA.183.80] s 149: [EA.149.60] s 150: [EA.8.60] s 150(1): [EA.150.60] s 150(3): [EA.178.60] s 150(4): [EA.178.60] s 151: [TAS.20] s 152: [EA.152.60] ss 153 to 159: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.30] s 155A: [TAS.20] s 156: [EA.156.150] s 157: [EA.52.30], [EA.157.60] s 160: [EA.160.60], [EA.160.120], [EA.163.30] ss 160 to 163: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.30] s 161: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.71.120], [EA.161.150] s 162: [EA.71.120], [EA.162.90] s 163: [EA.160.60], [TAS.20] s 164: [EA.136.210], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.4.30], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.210] s 164(3): [EA.165.210] s 165: [EA.17.60], [EA.37.120], [EA.38.150], [EA.38.330], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.150], [EA.108.210], [EA.114.120], [EA.114.270], [EA.114.360], [EA.115.330], [EA.116.90], [EA.116.120], [EA.116.180], [EA.136.150], [EA.164.90], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.420], [EA.165.450], [EA.165.480], [EA.165B.210] s 165(1): [EA.165.90], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.300], [EA.165.450], [EA.165A.150] s 165(1)(a): [EA.60.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.150], [EA.165.240] s 165(1)(b): [EA.116.150] s 165(1)(c): [EA.165.450] s 165(1)(d): [EA.55.240], [EA.165.360] s 165(1)(f): [EA.165.270] s 165(2): [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.150], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.180], [EA.165.210], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.300], [EA.165.330], [EA.165.360], [EA.165.420], [EA.165.480], [EA.165A.180] s 165(2)(a): [EA.165.210]

s 165(2)(b): [EA.165.210], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.360] s 165(2)(c): [EA.165.210] s 165(2)(f): [EA.165.420] s 165(3): [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.150], [EA.165.90], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.360], [EA.165B.240] s 165(4): [EA.165.210] s 165(5): [EA.165.210], [EA.165.480] s 165(6): [EA.165.330] s 165A: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30], [EA.165.330], [EA.165.480] s 165A(1): [EA.165A.150] s 165A(2): [EA.165.330], [EA.165B.210] s 165A(3): [EA.165.330] s 165B: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30], [EA.165.480] s 165B(2): [EA.165B.60], [EA.165B.240], [EA.165B.270], [EA.165B.300] s 165B(3): [EA.165B.240] s 165B(4): [EA.165B.270] s 165B(5): [EA.165B.150], [EA.165B.270], [EA.165B.300] s 165B(6)(b): [EA.165B.210] s 165B(7): [EA.165B.210] s 166: [EA.92.150], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30], [EA.167.30], [EA.169.60], [EA.169.90], [EA.183.60], [CTH.TN.10] s 166(c): [EA.69.390] s 166(f): [EA.63.180], [EA.64.390], [EA.69.390] ss 166 to 169: [EA.56.60], [EA.57.120], [EA.57.150], [EA.58.90], [EA.69.390], [EA.146.90] s 167: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.60], [EA.63.180], [EA.64.390], [EA.65.390], [EA.66.270], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.120], [EA.92.150], [EA.167.30], [EA.167.60], [EA.169.60] s 167(a): [EA.167.60] s 167(c): [EA.167.90] s 168: [EA.167.30], [CTH.TN.10] s 168(5): [EA.69.390], [EA.169.60] s 169: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30], [EA.168.60], [EA.169.60], [EA.183.60], [CTH.TN.10] s 169(1): [EA.169.60], [EA.169.120] s 169(1)(a): [EA.169.60] s 169(1)(b): [EA.169.60] s 169(1)(c): [EA.56.60], [EA.169.60] s 169(2): [EA.169.60], [CTH.TN.10] s 169(3): [EA.56.60], [EA.169.60] s 169(4): [EA.63.180], [EA.169.90] s 169(4)(b): [EA.169.150] s 169(5)(a) to (h): [EA.169.120] s 170: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30], [CTH.TN.10]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cx

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 171: [EA.48.330], [EA.63.240], [EA.64.360], [EA.65.360], [EA.69.510], [EA.70.210], [EA.71.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.60], [EA.182.60] s 172: [EA.48.330], [EA.63.240], [EA.64.360], [EA.65.360], [EA.69.510], [EA.70.210], [EA.71.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.60], [EA.182.60], [CTH.TN.10] s 173: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30], [CTH.TN.10] s 173(1): [EA.48.330], [EA.63.240], [EA.64.360], [EA.65.360], [EA.69.510], [EA.70.210], [EA.71.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.60], [EA.182.60] s 173(2): [EA.48.330], [EA.63.240], [EA.64.360], [EA.65.360], [EA.69.510], [EA.70.210], [EA.71.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.60], [EA.182.60] s 174: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30], [EA.176.30] s 175: [EA.176.30] s 176: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30] s 177: [EA.79.360], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30], [CTH.TN.10] s 177(2): [EA.79.360], [EA.177.30] s 177(5): [EA.79.360], [EA.177.30], [CTH.TN.10] s 177(6): [EA.79.360], [EA.177.30] s 177(7): [EA.79.360] s 178: [EA.91.90], [EA.92.120], [EA.157.60], [EA.178.30] ss 178 to 180: [EA.106.180], [EA.106.270] s 179: [EA.91.90], [EA.92.120], [EA.178.30] s 181: [EA.48.420], [EA.67.60], [EA.73.180], [EA.97.210], [EA.98.210], [EA.99.90], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.30], [EA.168.30], [EA.177.60], [EA.190.60] s 182: [EA.170.60], [EA.190.60], [TAS.20] s 182(1): [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.69.480], [EA.70.150], [EA.71.150], [EA.147.150], [EA.149.60], [EA.152.60], [EA.156.150], [EA.160.120], [EA.161.150], [EA.162.90], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.60], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.2.30], [EA.183.40] s 182(2): [EA.69.480], [EA.70.150], [EA.71.150] s 182(3): [EA.70.150] s 182(4)(a): [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.70.150] s 182(4)(b): [EA.70.150] s 182(5): [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.69.480], [EA.70.150], [EA.71.150]

s 183: [EA.48.210], [EA.48.240], [EA.48.270], [EA.48.300], [EA.58.60], [EA.69.150], [EA.69.330], [EA.69.540], [EA.71.120], [EA.79.390], [EA.160.60], [EA.183.40] s 184: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.55.90], [EA.191.20] s 184(2): [EA.184.20] s 185: [EA.4.150], [EA.185.20], [TAS.20] s 186: [EA.4.150], [EA.48.330], [EA.48.420], [EA.97.210], [EA.98.210], [EA.99.90], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.60], [EA.170.120], [EA.172.60], [EA.177.60], [EA.179.60], [EA.180.30], [EA.181.60], [EA.186.20], [TAS.20] s 187: [EA.4.150], [EA.128.300], [EA.131.180] s 188: [EA.45.120] s 189: [EA.13.300], [EA.18.180], [EA.55.120], [EA.75.90], [EA.89A.60], [EA.101.300], [EA.103.150], [EA.108.180], [EA.118.570], [EA.121.240], [EA.122.510], [EA.123.210], [EA.124.150], [EA.125.210], [EA.126B.420], [EA.126D.120], [EA.128A.270], [EA.130.390], [EA.131.630], [EA.142.60] s 189(1): [EA.128.720] s 189(2): [EA.84.90], [EA.85.270], [EA.189.80] s 189(3): [EA.84.90], [EA.85.210], [EA.85.270], [EA.189.140] s 189(4): [EA.13.300], [EA.189.80] s 189(5): [EA.13.300], [EA.189.80], [EA.189.120] s 189(6): [EA.84.90], [EA.85.270], [EA.128.720], [EA.189.100] s 189(7): [EA.55.120], [EA.142.60], [EA.189.60] s 189(8): [EA.55.120], [EA.84.90], [EA.85.270] s 190: [EA.Intro.350], [EA.13.300], [EA.17.60], [EA.29.150], [EA.48.180], [EA.56.60], [EA.57.150], [EA.64.270], [EA.65.330], [EA.68.90], [EA.97.180], [EA.98.180], [EA.110.120], [EA.122.210], [EA.144.90], [EA.157.30] s 190(1): [EA.56.60] s 190(2): [EA.190.60] s 190(3): [EA.56.60], [EA.190.80] s 190(4): [EA.190.80] s 191: [EA.55.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.184.20], [EA.191.20], [EA.191.40] s 191(2): [EA.191.20]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxi

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 191(2)(a): [EA.191.20] s 192: [EA.Intro.330], [EA.16.90], [EA.26.240], [EA.28.90], [EA.29.60], [EA.32.90], [EA.32.180], [EA.37.150], [EA.38.150], [EA.38.240], [EA.38.270], [EA.38.300], [EA.39.150], [EA.46.180], [EA.64.150], [EA.64.330], [EA.67.90], [EA.100.60], [EA.104.90], [EA.106.60], [EA.106.120], [EA.108.180], [EA.108C.150], [EA.110.120], [EA.112.60], [EA.126K.210], [EA.168.60], [EA.184.20], [EA.191.20], [EA.192.60] s 192(1): [EA.39.150], [EA.67.90], [EA.126K.210], [EA.192.80] s 192(2): [EA.16.90], [EA.29.60], [EA.32.90], [EA.32.180], [EA.37.150], [EA.38.150], [EA.46.180], [EA.67.90], [EA.104.90], [EA.106.120], [EA.108.180], [EA.108C.150], [EA.126K.210], [EA.168.60], [EA.192.40], [EA.192.80], [EA.192.100] s 192(2)(a): [EA.108.150], [EA.192.100] s 192(2)(b): [EA.38.150], [EA.112.60], [EA.192.100] s 192(2)(c): [EA.108.150], [EA.192.100] s 192A: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.38.300], [EA.110.120], [EA.192A.60] s 193: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.90], [EA.57.150], [EA.58.90], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.90], [EA.146.90], [EA.183.60] s 193(1): [EA.193.60] s 197: [EA.190.60] Ch 2: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.43.180], [EA.56.60], [EA.126K.20] Ch 2, Pt 2.1: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.60], [EA.21.210], [EA.28.120] Ch 2, Pt 2.1, Div 1: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.60] Ch 2, Pt 2.1, Divs 3 to 5: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30] Ch 2, Pt 2.2: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30] Ch 3: [EA.Intro.90], [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.350], [EA.8.60], [EA.39.240], [EA.43.60], [EA.43.180], [EA.45.120], [EA.45.150], [EA.48.60], [EA.48.120], [EA.48.270], [EA.48.360], [EA.50.30], [EA.53.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.1.30], [EA.55.60], [EA.55.90], [EA.55.120], [EA.56.60],

[EA.56.150], [EA.125.210], [EA.126D.120], [EA.126K.20], [EA.128.450], [EA.137.200], [EA.142.60], [EA.157.30], [EA.189.60], [EA.190.60] Ch 3, Pt, 3.11: [EA.55.60] Pt 1.2: [EA.8.60], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30] Pt 2.1: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.12.60], [EA.55.210] Pt 2.1, Div 1: [EA.8.60], [EA.13.300] Pt 2.1, Div 3: [EA.29.150] Pt 2.1, Div 5: [EA.38.180] Pt 2.2: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.51.60], [EA.69.330], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30] Pt 2.3: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30] Pt 3.1: [EA.43.180], [EA.48.120] Pt 3.2: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.43.180], [EA.59.90], [EA.83.60], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.150], [EA.108B.60], [EA.112.60], [EA.114.90], [EA.135.150], [EA.165.270], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30], [EA.191.40] Pt 3.2, Div 2: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.62.60], [EA.65.270], [EA.66A.60], [EA.67.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.60] Pt 3.2, Div 3: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.60], [EA.82.30] Pt 3.3: [EA.50.30], [EA.101A.60], [EA.106.240] Pt 3.4: [EA.48.120], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.30], [EA.60.90], [EA.81.60], [EA.101A.60], [EA.138.330], [EA.191.40] Pt 3.5: [EA.97.360], [EA.98.390], [EA.101.390], [EA.101A.60], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30] Pt 3.6: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.4.210], [EA.4.270], [EA.92.90], [EA.95.60], [EA.101.120], [EA.101.390], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.120], [EA.101A.210], [EA.104.60], [EA.104.150], [EA.104.210], [EA.108B.60], [EA.112.60] Pt 3.7: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.38.60], [EA.39.150], [EA.43.180], [EA.46.150], [EA.55.150], [EA.66.210], [EA.81.270], [EA.94.60], [EA.101.120], [EA.101A.60], [EA.101A.120], [EA.101A.150],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cxii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont [EA.108C.60], [EA.112.60], [EA.195.20], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Pt 3.7, Div 2: [EA.102.60], [EA.108B.60] Pt 3.7, Div 3: [EA.55.150], [EA.108C.180] Pt 3.7, Div 4: [EA.102.60] Pt 3.8: [EA.101A.210], [EA.102.90], [EA.104.60], [EA.104.150], [EA.104.210], [EA.108.60], [EA.108B.60], [EA.112.60] Pt 3.9: [EA.37.120], [EA.114.240], [EA.138.270], [EA.165.300] Pt 3.10: [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.180], [EA.Intro.210], [EA.Intro.270], [EA.Intro.330], [EA.36.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.117.60], [EA.117.90], [EA.118.90], [EA.122.420], [EA.123.90], [EA.126B.90], [EA.128.150], [EA.130.90], [EA.131.90], [EA.131A.60], [EA.131A.90], [EA.131A.150], [EA.131A.180] Pt 3.10, Div 1: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.117.90] Pt 3.10, Div 1A: [EA.Intro.210], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30], [EA.131A.60], [EA.131B.30] Pt 3.10, Div 1B: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.30], [EA.126B.60] Pt 3.11: [EA.37.120], [EA.38.60], [EA.44.120], [EA.46.150], [EA.48.60], [EA.48.180], [EA.48.270], [EA.51.60], [EA.53.60], [EA.55.540], [EA.55.570], [EA.60.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.120], [EA.64.300], [EA.65.150], [EA.65.330], [EA.66.60], [EA.69.600], [EA.79.90], [EA.79.240], [EA.81.270], [EA.87.60], [EA.92.90], [EA.106.60], [EA.106.120], [EA.106.240], [EA.108.180], [EA.110.90], [EA.114.60], [EA.114.240], [EA.114.360], [EA.115.60], [EA.131.120], [EA.189.120], [EA.192.100] Pt 4.3: [EA.57.120], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.60] Pt 4.3, Div 3: [EA.71.120] Pt 4.5: [EA.Intro.210] Pt 4.6, Div 1: [EA.63.180], [EA.64.390], [EA.65.390], [EA.66.270], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.3.120], [EA.69.390], [EA.92.150], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.6.Div.1.30], [EA.169.60] Pt 4.6, Div 2: [EA.48.330], [EA.63.240], [EA.64.360], [EA.65.360],

[EA.69.510], [EA.70.210], [EA.71.180], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.3.60], [EA.182.60] Pt 4.6, Div 3: [EA.106.270], [EA.176.30] Sch 1: [EA.21.150], [EA.22.60], [EA.22.90], [EA.Dict.Pt.1.30] Dictionary: [EA.18.60], [EA.26.90], [EA.33.30], [EA.98.120], [EA.115.150], [EA.137.60], [EA.137.90] Dictionary, Pt 1: [EA.146.60], [EA.147.90], [EA.148.30], [EA.155A.30], [EA.156.90], [EA.158.60] Dictionary, Pt 2: [EA.18.60], [EA.66.120], [EA.118.360] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 1: [EA.48.210], [EA.69.90], [EA.70.90], [EA.147.120] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 2: [EA.28.60], [EA.37.60], [EA.39.90] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 3: [EA.125.90], [EA.126D.30], [EA.128.210] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 4: [EA.63.90], [EA.64.90], [EA.65.90], [EA.66.90], [EA.83.60] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 4(1)(b): [EA.61.30] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 4(1)(f): [EA.13.90], [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 4(2): [EA.63.90], [EA.64.90], [EA.65.90], [EA.66.90] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 5: [EA.48.270] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 6: [EA.44.150], [EA.63.60], [EA.64.120], [EA.65.300], [EA.81.60] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 7: [EA.26.90], [EA.27.90], [EA.38.90], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 8: [EA.32.60], [EA.48.90], [EA.69.90], [EA.71.90], [EA.131.240], [EA.146.60], [EA.147.90], [EA.148.30], [EA.155A.30], [EA.156.90], [EA.158.60] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 8(a): [EA.126.60] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 9: [EA.4.60], [EA.138.90] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 9(2): [EA.128.180] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 10(1): [EA.18.60] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 10(2): [EA.18.60] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11: [EA.18.60] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11(2): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11(3): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11(3)(a): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11(3)(c): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxiii

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11(3)(d): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11(3)(e): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 11(3)(g): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120]

Evidence Amendment Act 2008: [EA.117.90], [EA.122.60], [EA.165A.90], [EA.165A.150], [EA.165B.90], [EA.165B.150], [EA.165B.270], [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.180] Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Act 2007: [EA.131A.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30], [EA.Intro.60] Sch 1: [EA.131A.60]

Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Act 2011: [EA.Intro.60], [EA.131A.60], [EA.131B.30] Evidence Regulations 1995: [EA.128A.150] reg 5: [EA.67.60] reg 6: [EA.99.60], [CTH.TN.10] reg 6(2): [EA.97.180] reg 6(3): [EA.98.180] Form 2: [EA.179.60] Form 3: [EA.180.30] Sch: [EA.128A.150] Excise Act 1901: [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60] Extradition Act 1988: [EA.4.150]

Family Court Rules 2004 Pt 15.5: [EA.26.300], [EA.79.330]

Family Law Act 1975 s 79: [EA.138.720] s 101: [EA.41.330]

Federal Court Rules s 76: [EA.79.90] s 79: [EA.79.90] s 79(1): [EA.79.90] s 79(2): [EA.79.90] O 10, r 1(2)(j): [EA.79.60] O 33, r 11: [EA.128.150] O 33, r 19: [EA.98.180] O 34: [EA.26.120]

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976: [EA.4.150]

Federal Rules of Evidence s 65(2)(c): [EA.65.210]

Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 s 31(1): [EA.8.60], [EA.141.90]

Foreign Evidence Act 1974 s 7: [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30]

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 s 46PO: [EA.140.120]

Judiciary Act 1903: [EA.8.60] s 68: [EA.8.60] s 79: [EA.8.60], [EA.131A.60], [EA.141.90]

s 80: [EA.8.60] s 80A: [EA.8.60]

Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 r 61: [EA.41.300]

Migration Act 1958: [EA.Dict.Pt.1.30] s 420(1): [EA.4.150], [EA.5.30], [EA.8.60]

National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Act 2004: [EA.130.450] s 31(7): [EA.130.450] s 31(8): [EA.130.450]

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 s 14(1): [EA.15.60] s 16: [EA.10.60]

State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act 1901 s s s s

8: [EA.158.30] 9: [EA.158.30] 17: [EA.157.30] 18: [EA.185.20]

Taxation Administration Act 1953 Pt III: [EA.17.60], [EA.18.60], [EA.109.30]

Trade Practices Act 1974: [EA.191.20]

Australian Capital Territory Court Procedures Rules 2006 Pt 2.12: [EA.26.300], [EA.79.330]

Evidence Act 1971 s s s s s s s

52: [EA.36.30] 57: [EA.128.90] 66(3): [EA.19.30] 67: [EA.184.20] 85: [EA.195.20] 88: [EA.188.20] 94(3): [EA.179.30]

Evidence Act 2011: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30] s 33: [ACT.TN.10] s 38: [ACT.TN.10] s 49: [ACT.TN.10] s 50(1): [ACT.TN.10] s 50(2): [ACT.TN.10] s 63(2): [ACT.TN.10] s 64(2): [ACT.TN.10] s 65(2): [ACT.TN.10] s 65(3): [ACT.TN.10] s 65(8): [ACT.TN.10] s 67: [ACT.TN.10] s 67(1): [ACT.TN.10] s 67(2): [ACT.TN.10] s 67(3): [ACT.TN.10] s 67(4): [ACT.TN.10] s 67(5): [ACT.TN.10] s 68: [ACT.TN.10] s 97: [ACT.TN.10] s 98: [ACT.TN.10]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cxiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 2011 — cont s 99: [ACT.TN.10] s 100: [ACT.TN.10] s 166: [ACT.TN.10] s 168: [ACT.TN.10] s 169: [ACT.TN.10] s 169(2): [ACT.TN.10] s 170: [ACT.TN.10] s 172: [ACT.TN.10] s 173: [ACT.TN.10] s 177: [ACT.TN.10] s 177(5): [ACT.TN.10]

Evidence Regulation 2012 reg 5: [ACT.TN.10] reg 6: [ACT.TN.10] reg 10: [ACT.TN.10]

Proceeds of Crime Act 1991: [EA.75.90]

New South Wales Adoption of Children Act 1965 s 21: [EA.94.90] Pt 3.6: [EA.94.90]

Bail Act 2013 s 31: [EA.4.210]

Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987: [EA.19.30]

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987: [NSW.CP.220] s 13: [EA.84.150] s 148(4)(a): [NSW.CP.260]

Civil Procedure Act 2005 s s s s s

30: [EA.131.330] 70(1)(a): [EA.75.180], [EA.190.80] 87: [EA.128.150], [EA.128.780] 87(1): [EA.128.150], [EA.128.780] 128: [EA.128.780] Coroners Act 1980: [EA.128.540] s 33: [EA.8.90]

Coroners Act 2009 s 61(4): [EA.128.540]

Crimes Act 1900: [EA.8.90], [EA.19.30], [EA.184.20], [EA.Intro.350], [NSW.CP.200] s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

23A(2): [EA.80.120] 61B: [NSW.CP.200] 61C: [NSW.CP.200] 61D: [NSW.CP.200] 61E: [NSW.CP.200] 61I: [NSW.CP.200] 61J: [NSW.CP.200] 61K: [NSW.CP.200] 61L: [NSW.CP.200] 61M: [NSW.CP.200] 61N: [NSW.CP.200] 61O: [NSW.CP.200] 61JA: [NSW.CP.200] 63: [NSW.CP.200] 65: [NSW.CP.200]

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

65A: [NSW.CP.200] 66: [NSW.CP.200] 66A: [NSW.CP.200] 66B: [NSW.CP.200] 66C: [NSW.CP.200] 66D: [NSW.CP.200] 66F: [NSW.CP.200] 66EA: [NSW.CP.200] 66EB: [NSW.CP.200] 67: [NSW.CP.200] 68: [NSW.CP.200] 71: [NSW.CP.200] 72: [NSW.CP.200] 72A: [NSW.CP.200] 73: [NSW.CP.200] 74: [NSW.CP.200] 76: [NSW.CP.200] 76A: [NSW.CP.200] 78A: [NSW.CP.200] 78B: [NSW.CP.200] 78H: [NSW.CP.200] 78I: [NSW.CP.200] 78K: [NSW.CP.200] 78L: [NSW.CP.200] 78M: [NSW.CP.200] 78N: [NSW.CP.200] 78O: [NSW.CP.200] 78Q: [NSW.CP.200] 79: [EA.80.150], [NSW.CP.200] 80: [NSW.CP.200] 80A: [NSW.CP.200] 80D: [NSW.CP.200] 80E: [NSW.CP.200] 81: [NSW.CP.200] 81A: [NSW.CP.200] 81B: [NSW.CP.200] 86: [NSW.CP.200] 87: [NSW.CP.200] 89: [NSW.CP.200] 90: [NSW.CP.200] 91: [NSW.CP.200] 91A: [NSW.CP.200] 91B: [NSW.CP.200] 91D: [NSW.CP.200] 91E: [NSW.CP.200] 91F: [NSW.CP.200] 91G: [NSW.CP.200] 404: [EA.184.20] 407(3)(b): [EA.19.30] 407AA: [EA.19.30] 409: [EA.8.90] 418: [EA.33.30]

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 6: [EA.101.150]

Criminal Appeal Rules r 4: [EA.Intro.350]

Criminal Procedure Act 1986: [EA.20.90], [EA.37.270], [EA.66.300], [EA.76.180],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxv

Table of Statutes Criminal Procedure Act 1986 — cont [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30], [EA.Intro.210], [NSW.CP.260] s 3: [NSW.CP.200], [NSW.CP.220] s 41: [EA.41.90] s 41(1)(a): [EA.41.90] s 41(1)(b): [EA.41.90] s 41(5): [EA.41.90] s 105: [EA.97.450] s 131: [EA.20.90] s 132: [EA.20.90] s 133(3): [EA.165.150], [EA.165B.120] s 135: [EA.103.120] s 194M: [TAS.10] s 275A: [EA.41.90] s 279: [EA.19.30] s 279(4): [EA.19.30] s 281: [EA.Intro.350], [EA.81.60], [EA.84.150], [EA.85.150], [EA.86.120], [EA.139.60], [TAS.10] s 289: [EA.8.90] s 289I: [EA.66.300], [EA.76.180] s 293: [EA.97.450], [EA.103.120] s 294: [EA.165.540] s 294(2)(c): [EA.165.540] s 294A: [EA.27.180], [EA.41.330] s 294AA: [EA.165.540] s 294AA(2): [EA.165.540] s 294AA(3): [EA.165.540] s 295: [NSW.CP.270], [NSW.CP.320], [NSW.CP.340], [NSW.CP.400], [TAS.10] s 295(1): [NSW.CP.500] s 296: [NSW.CP.270], [NSW.CP.400] s 296(2): [NSW.CP.260] s 298: [NSW.CP.360], [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.600], [NSW.CP.720], [NSW.CP.760] s 299A: [NSW.CP.300], [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.600] s 299B: [NSW.CP.300], [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.600] s 299C: [NSW.CP.300] s 299C(5): [NSW.CP.380] s 299D: [NSW.CP.300] s 299D(1): [NSW.CP.300], [NSW.CP.560] s 299D(1)(c): [NSW.CP.540] s 299D(2): [NSW.CP.480], [NSW.CP.500], [NSW.CP.540] s 299D(3): [NSW.CP.500], [NSW.CP.600] s 299D(4): [NSW.CP.600] s 299D(5): [NSW.CP.580] s 301: [NSW.CP.780] s 301(2): [NSW.CP.800] s 302: [NSW.CP.500], [NSW.CP.540], [NSW.CP.600], [TAS.10] s 305: [NSW.CP.300], [TAS.10] s 306: [TAS.10] ss 306A to 306G: [EA.12.60] s 306B(4): [EA.66.300]

s 306V(1): [EA.66.300], [EA.76.180] s 306X: [EA.66.300] Pt 4: [EA.65.450] Pt 5: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30] Pt 5, Div 2: [NSW.CP.720] Pt 7: [EA.Intro.210], [NSW.CP.260], [NSW.CP.420] Sch 2, cl 25: [NSW.CP.260]

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Justices and Local Courts) Act 2001: [NSW.CP.420]

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Assault Communications Privilege) Act 2002: [NSW.CP.260] District Court Rules 1973 Pt 53: [EA.128.150] Pt 53, r 10C: [CTH.TN.10], [NSW.TN.10], [ACT.TN.10], [NT.TN.10]

Electronic Transactions Act 2000: [EA.161.60], [EA.Intro.180] s 5: [EA.161.60]

Evidence Act 1898: [EA.69.210], [EA.118.90] s 8: [EA.106.90] s 9: [EA.106.90] s 10: [EA.127.30] s 14CE(5): [EA.69.120] s 14CH: [EA.69.270] s 15A: [EA.181.30] s 23: [EA.178.30] s 43: [EA.106.90] s 54: [EA.106.90] s 69: [EA.69.210] s 69(5): [EA.69.210] Ch 2: [EA.106.90] Pt 3.3: [EA.69.210] Evidence Act 1995: [EA.2.30], [EA.4.180], [EA.8.90], [EA.9.90], [EA.18.60], [EA.24A.30], [EA.89.60], [EA.106.90], [EA.116.180], [EA.117.60], [EA.128.600], [EA.160.60], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.90], [EA.165A.120], [EA.165B.150], [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.4.30], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30], [EA.Dict.Pt.1.60], [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.210], [EA.Intro.350], [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.440], [NSW.CP.460], [TAS.20] s 3: [EA.Intro.240] s 4: [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.30] s 8: [EA.8.90] s 9: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.9.90], [EA.18.60], [EA.39.240] s 9(1): [EA.9.90] s 9(2)(a): [EA.75.180] s 9(2)(c): [EA.4.240], [EA.9.180]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cxvi

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 18: [EA.Intro.150] s 19: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.19.30] s 20: [EA.Intro.150] s 23(2): [EA.23.60] s 33: [EA.8.90], [NSW.TN.10] s 37: [EA.37.270], [EA.39.270] s 37(1)(a): [EA.39.270] s 38: [NSW.TN.10] s 49: [NSW.TN.10] s 50(1): [NSW.TN.10] s 50(2): [NSW.TN.10] s 53(1): [EA.53.120] s 53(2)(a): [EA.53.120] s 53(3): [EA.53.120], [EA.53.150] s 53(5): [EA.53.180] s 55: [EA.55.270], [EA.78.60] s 56: [EA.78.60] s 56(1): [EA.76.120] s 57: [EA.55.270], [EA.59.180] s 59: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.9.90], [EA.56.90], [EA.66.150], [EA.81.60] s 60: [EA.56.90] s 63(2): [NSW.TN.10] s 64(2): [NSW.TN.10] s 65: [EA.8.90] s 65(2): [NSW.TN.10] s 65(3): [NSW.TN.10] s 65(8): [NSW.TN.10] s 66(2)(b): [EA.66.120] s 67: [NSW.TN.10] s 67(1): [NSW.TN.10] s 67(2): [NSW.TN.10] s 67(3): [NSW.TN.10] s 67(4): [EA.67.60], [NSW.TN.10] s 67(5): [NSW.TN.10] s 68: [NSW.TN.10] s 69: [EA.56.90], [EA.76.120] s 69(2): [EA.76.120] s 69(5): [EA.62.60], [EA.69.180] s 76: [EA.56.90], [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.78.60] s 77: [EA.56.90], [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.76.180], [EA.78.60] s 78: [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.76.180], [EA.78.60] s 78(a): [EA.62.60], [EA.69.180], [EA.78.60] s 78(b): [EA.78.60] s 79: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.55.270], [EA.76.90], [EA.76.120], [EA.76.180] s 80: [EA.Intro.120] s 84: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30] s 85: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30] s 86: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30] s 88: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30] s 89A: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30], [EA.81.60] s 89A(1): [EA.89A.60] s 90: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.4.30]

s 97: [NSW.TN.10] s 98: [EA.98.120], [NSW.TN.10] s 98(1)(b): [EA.98.120] s 98(2): [EA.98.120] s 99: [NSW.TN.10] s 100: [NSW.TN.10] s 101: [EA.Intro.150] s 102: [EA.164.180] s 108: [EA.164.180] s 110: [EA.Intro.150] ss 113 to 115: [EA.Intro.150] s 114: [EA.115.180] s 114(2)(c): [EA.115.180] s 114(3): [EA.115.180] s 114(5): [EA.115.180] s 115: [EA.115.150] s 115(3): [EA.115.150] s 115(5): [EA.115.150] s 115(5)(a): [EA.115.180] s 115(6): [EA.115.210] s 117: [EA.118.120], [EA.119.150] s 118: [EA.118.90], [EA.119.150], [EA.133.60] s 119: [EA.119.150], [EA.133.60] s 122: [EA.117.120] s 123: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Intro.210] s 126A: [EA.90.270] s 126B: [EA.18.60], [EA.90.270], [EA.130.120] s 126B(3): [EA.126B.60], [NSW.CP.500] s 126G: [TAS.10] s 126H: [NSW.CP.420] s 126I: [TAS.10] s 126K: [EA.126B.360] s 128: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.Intro.210], [EA.8.90], [EA.128.780], [EA.128A.90], [EA.132.60], [EA.138.120], [EA.138.150], [EA.138.600] s 128(1): [EA.128.780] s 128(2): [EA.128.780] s 128(3): [EA.128.780] s 128(4): [EA.128.780] s 128(4)(b): [EA.128.780] s 128(5): [EA.128.780] s 128(7): [EA.128.60], [EA.128.600] s 128A: [EA.128.150], [EA.128.780] s 131: [EA.8.90] s 131A: [EA.Intro.210] s 132: [EA.138.120], [EA.138.150], [EA.138.600] s 133: [EA.128.780], [EA.133.60] s 134: [EA.118.90] s 135: [EA.Intro.150] s 136: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.60.60] s 138: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.8.90], [EA.115.150], [EA.128.780], [EA.132.60], [EA.138.390], [EA.138.420]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxvii

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 1995 — cont s 138(1): [EA.138.240], [EA.138.420] s 138(2)(b): [EA.138.390] s 138(3): [EA.138.420] s 141: [EA.194.20] s 142: [EA.194.20] s 144: [EA.144.60] s 146: [EA.Intro.150] ss 146 to 163: [EA.9.150] s 147: [EA.Intro.150] s 150: [EA.143.60] s 150(1): [EA.150.90] s 150(3): [EA.150.90] s 153(1): [EA.143.60] s 153(2): [EA.143.60] s 160: [EA.160.60] s 164: [EA.Intro.150] s 165: [EA.Intro.150], [EA.165.360] s 165(1)(d): [EA.164.180] s 165(2): [EA.165.360] s 165(2)(c): [EA.165.360] s 165(6): [EA.165A.90] s 165(7): [EA.Intro.210] s 165A: [EA.165A.90] s 165A(1): [EA.165A.120] s 165B: [EA.Intro.210], [EA.165A.90] s 165B(2): [EA.Intro.210] s 165B(7): [EA.165B.60] s 166: [NSW.TN.10] s 168: [NSW.TN.10] s 169: [NSW.TN.10] s 169(2): [NSW.TN.10] s 170: [NSW.TN.10] s 172: [NSW.TN.10] s 173: [NSW.TN.10] s 177: [NSW.TN.10] s 177(5): [NSW.TN.10] s 183: [EA.69.180] s 189: [EA.128.780] s 192: [EA.53.120] s 192(1): [EA.53.120] s 194(1)(b): [EA.194.20] Pt 3.2: [EA.76.120], [EA.133.60] Pt 3.3: [EA.76.120] Pt 3.4: [EA.9.90] Pt 3.10: [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.210] Pt 3.10, Div 1A: [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.150], [EA.126B.60], [EA.127.30], [NSW.CP.420] Pt 3.10, Div 1B: [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.150], [NSW.CP.420], [NSW.CP.440] Pt 3.11: [EA.55.480], [EA.66.120], [EA.76.120] Pt 4.6, Div 1: [EA.Intro.150] Sch 1, Pt 2, cl 4(1)(c): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Sch 1, Pt 2, cl 4(1)(f): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 4(1)(e): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30]

Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 4(1)(f): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 4(2): [EA.66.120] Dictionary, Pt 2, cl 8: [EA.118.90]

Evidence Amendment Act 2007: [EA.122.330], [EA.165B.90], [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.180]

Evidence Amendment (Confidential Communications) Act 1997: [EA.126B.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30], [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.210], [NSW.CP.420] Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998: [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30] s 5B: [EA.28.150]

Evidence (Consequential and Other Provisions) Act 1995: [EA.8.90] Evidence Legislation Act Amendment Act 2001: [EA.22.60], [EA.23.60], [EA.24A.30], [EA.165A.90] Evidence Regulation 2005 cl 4: [NSW.TN.10] cl 5(2): [NSW.TN.10] cl 5(3): [NSW.TN.10]

Evidence Regulation 2010 regs 5-6: [EA.99.60] reg 5(2): [EA.97.180] reg 6(2): [EA.98.180]

Evidence on Commission Act 1995: [EA.Dict.Pt.2.30]

Interpretation Act 1987: [EA.89A.30] s 21: [EA.89A.30], [EA.131A.120] s 21(1): [EA.59.150]

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 s 113(2): [EA.84.150] ss 114 to 115: [EA.84.150] s 122: [EA.84.150] s 123 to 124: [EA.84.150] s 128: [EA.84.150] s 129: [EA.84.150] s 130: [EA.84.150] s 131: [EA.84.150] Pt 9: [EA.84.150], [EA.90.260]

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2005: [EA.84.150] cl 33: [EA.84.150]

Legal Profession Act 2004: [EA.119.120] Legal Profession Uniform Law: [EA.117.60] Listening Devices Act 1984 s 13: [EA.8.60] Pt 4: [EA.8.90]

Oaths Act 1900 Pt 5: [EA.186.20]

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983: [EA.17.60]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cxviii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes

Supreme Court Act 1970: [EA.75.180] s 75: [EA.75.180] s 131: [EA.131.330] Pt 7B: [EA.8.90], [EA.131.330] Supreme Court Rules 1970: [EA.4.150] r 13: [EA.4.150] Pt 38, r 9(1): [EA.59.240] Pt 75: [EA.79.330], [EA.128.150] Pt 75, r 3J: [EA.26.300], [EA.79.330] Pt 75, r 3K: [EA.79.330]

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005: [EA.128.150] r 21.3(2)(d): [EA.118.570] r 31.4: [EA.37.240] r 31.5: [CTH.TN.10], [NSW.TN.10], [ACT.TN.10], [NT.TN.10] r 31.17: [EA.26.300], [EA.79.330] r 31.23: [EA.26.300] Pt 25: [EA.Intro.180], [EA.128.150], [EA.128A.90] Pt 31, Div 2, Subdiv 5: [EA.26.120] Sch 7: [EA.26.300], [EA.79.330]

Northern Territory

s s s s

172: [NT.TN.10] 173: [NT.TN.10] 177: [NT.TN.10] 177(5): [NT.TN.10]

Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Regulations reg 4: [NT.TN.10] reg 6(1): [NT.TN.10] reg 6(2): [NT.TN.10]

Queensland Criminal Code 1899 s 125: [EA.164.150]

Evidence Act 1977 s 75: [EA.71.60]

South Australia Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988: [EA.78A.60] s 55: [EA.78A.60] s 76: [EA.78A.60] s 79: [EA.78A.60]

Evidence Act 1929 Evidence (Business Records) Interim Arrangements Act 1984

s 9(4): [EA.13.330] s 53: [EA.71.60]

s 5(1)(b): [EA.69.120] s 8: [EA.69.270]

Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30], [EA.Intro.60] s 33: [NT.TN.10] s 38: [NT.TN.10] s 49: [NT.TN.10] s 50(1): [NT.TN.10] s 50(2): [NT.TN.10] s 63(2): [NT.TN.10] s 64(2): [NT.TN.10] s 65(2): [NT.TN.10] s 65(3): [NT.TN.10] s 65(8): [NT.TN.10] s 67: [NT.TN.10] s 67(1): [NT.TN.10] s 67(2): [NT.TN.10] s 67(3): [NT.TN.10] s 67(4): [NT.TN.10] s 67(5): [NT.TN.10] s 68: [NT.TN.10] s 97: [NT.TN.10] s 98: [NT.TN.10] s 99: [NT.TN.10] s 100: [NT.TN.10] s 166: [NT.TN.10] s 168: [NT.TN.10] s 169: [NT.TN.10] s 169(2): [NT.TN.10] s 170: [NT.TN.10]

Tasmania Criminal Code 1924 s 96: [EA.164.150]

Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995 s 8: [EA.85.150], [EA.139.60], [EA.165.420]

Evidence Act 1910 ss 7 to 13: [TAS.10] s 25: [TAS.10] s 26: [TAS.10] s 40C(1)(b): [EA.69.120] s 40F: [EA.69.270] s 41: [EA.71.60] ss 60 to 60B: [TAS.10] s 62: [TAS.10] s 85(10)(c): [TAS.10] s 85A: [TAS.10] s 92: [TAS.10] s 96: [TAS.10] s 102A: [TAS.10] s 103AB: [TAS.10] s 133: [TAS.10] s 134: [TAS.10] s 135: [TAS.10]

Evidence Act 1995 s 134: [EA.65.270]

Evidence Act 2001: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 1: [TAS.20]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxix

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 2001 — cont s 2: [TAS.20] s 2A: [TAS.20] s 3: [TAS.20] s 3A: [TAS.20] s 3B: [TAS.20] s 3C: [TAS.20] s 3D: [TAS.20] s 4: [TAS.20] s 7: [TAS.20] s 8: [TAS.20] s 9: [TAS.20] s 10: [TAS.20] s 11: [TAS.20] s 12: [TAS.20] s 13: [TAS.20] s 14: [TAS.20] s 15: [TAS.20] s 16: [TAS.20] s 17: [TAS.20] s 18: [TAS.20] s 19: [TAS.20] s 20: [TAS.20] s 21: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 22: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 23: [TAS.20] s 24: [TAS.20] s 26: [TAS.20] s 27: [TAS.20] s 28: [TAS.20] s 29: [TAS.20] s 30: [TAS.20] s 30A: [TAS.20] s 31: [TAS.20] s 32: [TAS.20] s 33: [TAS.20] s 34: [TAS.20] s 35: [TAS.20] s 36: [TAS.20] s 37: [TAS.20] s 38: [TAS.20] s 39: [TAS.20] s 40: [TAS.20] s 41: [TAS.20] s 42: [TAS.20] s 43: [TAS.20] s 44: [TAS.20] s 45: [TAS.20] s 46: [TAS.20] s 47: [TAS.20] s 48: [TAS.20] s 49: [TAS.20] s 50: [TAS.20] s 51: [TAS.20] s 52: [TAS.20] s 53: [TAS.20] s 53(2): [TAS.10] s 54: [TAS.20] s 55: [TAS.20] s 56: [TAS.20]

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

57: [TAS.20] 58: [TAS.20] 59: [TAS.20] 60: [TAS.20] 61: [TAS.20] 62: [TAS.20] 63: [TAS.20] 64: [TAS.20] 65: [TAS.20] 66: [TAS.20] 66A: [TAS.20] 67: [TAS.20] 68: [TAS.20] 69: [TAS.20] 70: [TAS.20] 71: [TAS.20] 72: [TAS.20] 73: [TAS.20] 74: [TAS.20] 75: [TAS.20] 76: [TAS.20] 77: [TAS.20] 78: [TAS.20] 78A: [TAS.20] 79: [TAS.20] 80: [TAS.20] 81: [TAS.20] 82: [TAS.20] 83: [TAS.20] 84: [TAS.20] 85: [TAS.20] 85A: [TAS.20] 86: [TAS.20] 87: [TAS.20] 88: [TAS.20] 89: [TAS.20] 90: [TAS.20] 91: [TAS.20] 92: [TAS.20] 93: [TAS.20] 94: [TAS.20] 95: [TAS.20] 96: [TAS.20] 97: [TAS.20] 98: [TAS.20] 99: [TAS.20] 100: [TAS.20] 101: [TAS.20] 101A: [TAS.20] 102: [TAS.20] 103: [TAS.20] 104: [TAS.20] 104(4): [TAS.10] 104(4)(b): [TAS.10] 106: [TAS.20] 108: [TAS.20] 108A: [TAS.20] 108B: [TAS.20] 108C: [TAS.20]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cxx

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 2001 — cont s 109: [TAS.20] s 110: [TAS.20] s 111: [TAS.20] s 112: [TAS.20] s 116: [TAS.20] s 117: [TAS.20] s 118: [TAS.20] s 119: [TAS.20] s 120: [TAS.20] s 121: [TAS.20] s 122: [TAS.20] s 123: [TAS.20] s 124: [TAS.20] s 125: [TAS.20] s 126: [TAS.20] s 126A: [TAS.20] s 126B: [TAS.20] s 126C: [TAS.20] s 126D: [TAS.20] s 126E: [TAS.20] s 126F: [TAS.20] s 127: [TAS.20] s 127A: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 127B: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 128: [TAS.20] s 128A: [TAS.20] s 129: [TAS.20] s 130: [TAS.20] s 131: [TAS.20] s 131A: [TAS.20] s 132: [TAS.20] s 133: [TAS.20] s 134: [TAS.20] s 135: [TAS.20] s 136: [TAS.20] s 137: [TAS.20] s 138: [TAS.20] s 139: [TAS.20] s 140: [TAS.20] s 141: [TAS.20] s 142: [TAS.20] s 142A: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 143: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 144: [TAS.20] s 145: [TAS.20] s 146: [TAS.20] s 147: [TAS.20] s 148: [TAS.20] s 149: [TAS.20] s 150: [TAS.20] s 152: [TAS.20] s 153: [TAS.20] s 154: [TAS.20] s 155: [TAS.20] s 156: [TAS.20] s 157: [TAS.20] s 158: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] s 159: [TAS.20] s 160: [TAS.20]

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

161: [TAS.20] 162: [TAS.20] 164: [TAS.20] 165: [TAS.20] 165(1)(f): [TAS.10] 165A: [TAS.20] 165B: [TAS.20] 166: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 167: [TAS.20] 168: [TAS.20] 169: [TAS.20] 170: [TAS.20] 171: [TAS.20] 172: [TAS.20] 173: [TAS.20] 174: [TAS.20] 175: [TAS.20] 176: [TAS.20] 177: [TAS.20] 177A: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 177B: [TAS.20] 177C: [TAS.20] 177D: [TAS.20] 177E: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 178: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 179: [TAS.20] 180: [TAS.20] 181: [TAS.20] 181A: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 183: [TAS.20] 184: [TAS.20] 187: [TAS.20] 188: [TAS.20] 189: [TAS.20] 190: [TAS.20] 191: [TAS.20] 192: [TAS.20] 192A: [TAS.20] 193: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194A: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194B: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194C: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194D: [TAS.20] 194E: [TAS.20] 194F: [TAS.20] 194G: [TAS.20] 194H: [TAS.20] 194I: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194J: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194K: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194L: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 194M: [TAS.20] 195: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 196: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 196A: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 196B: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 196C: [TAS.10], [TAS.20] 197: [TAS.20]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxxi

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 2001 — cont s 198: [TAS.20] s 199: [TAS.20] s 200: [TAS.20] Sch 1: [TAS.20] Sch 2: [TAS.20] Justices Act 1959: [TAS.10], [TAS.20]

Relationships Act 2003 s 4(1): [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120]

Tasmanian Police Service Act 2003: [EA.138.90]

Victoria Civil Procedure Act 2010: [EA.79.330] s 65H(1): [EA.79.450] s 65K(1): [EA.79.450] s 79: [EA.79.330] Pt 4.6: [EA.79.450] Crimes Act 1958: [EA.135.60], [EA.135.240], [EA.Intro.120] s 2B: [EA.20.90] s 9AH: [EA.79.450] s 9AH(1): [EA.79.450] s 9AH(2): [EA.79.450] s 9AH(3): [EA.79.450] s 37A: [EA.103.120] s 61: [EA.Intro.120] s 135(d): [EA.135.60] s 391: [EA.20.90] s 398A: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.98.120] s 404: [EA.Intro.120] s 415: [EA.194.40] s 464: [EA.85.150], [EA.139.90] s 464A: [EA.84.150] s 464C: [EA.84.150] s 464D: [EA.84.150] s 464E: [EA.84.150] s 464F: [EA.84.150] s 464H(1): [EA.86.120] s 464H(2): [EA.86.120] Pt 1, Div 1, Subdiv 30A: [EA.84.150] Pt IC: [EA.101.480], [EA.135.240] Criminal Procedure Act 2009: [EA.37.270], [EA.Intro.120] s 338: [EA.66.300] ss 339 to 352: [EA.97.450] s 354: [EA.27.180] s 356: [EA.27.180] s 367: [EA.37.270] s 377: [EA.66.300], [EA.108.210] s 377(2): [EA.66.300] s 377(3): [EA.66.300] s 377(4): [EA.66.300] s 377(5): [EA.66.300] s 377(6): [EA.66.300] s 377(7): [EA.66.300] s 388: [EA.108C.210]

Pt 8.2: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.12.60], [EA.41.330] Pt 8.2, Div 2: [EA.97.450]

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2009: [EA.Intro.120] Evidence Act 1958: [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.120] s 112: [EA.186.20] s 123C: [EA.186.20] s 124: [EA.186.20] s 125: [EA.186.20] s 126: [EA.186.20] s 126A: [EA.186.20] s 150: [EA.194.40] Pt 2: [EA.Intro.210] Pt 2, Div 2: [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30] Evidence Act 2008: [EA.2.30], [EA.20.60], [EA.20.420], [EA.22.60], [EA.23.60], [EA.35.60], [EA.66.300], [EA.79.450], [EA.85.210], [EA.114.240], [EA.128.150], [EA.128.600], [EA.165B.150], [EA.165B.210], [EA.165B.270], [EA.165B.300], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1B.30], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.4.30], [EA.Dict.Pt.1.180], [EA.Intro.30], [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.120], [EA.Intro.210] s 3A: [EA.3A.30] s 4: [EA.4.120], [EA.4.300] s 4(1): [EA.4.120] s 4(5): [EA.4.120] s 9(1): [EA.Intro.120] s 11: [EA.Intro.120] s 17: [EA.Intro.210] s 26: [EA.Intro.120] s 33: [VIC.TN.10] s 38: [VIC.TN.10] s 41: [EA.41.270] s 41(1): [EA.41.100] s 41(2): [EA.Intro.210], [EA.41.100] s 41(3): [EA.Intro.210], [EA.41.60], [EA.41.100] s 41(3)(d): [EA.41.210] s 41(4): [EA.Intro.210], [EA.41.60], [EA.41.100] s 41(4)(c)(i): [EA.41.240] s 41(4)(c)(ii): [EA.41.240] s 41(8): [EA.41.270], [EA.41.360] s 49: [VIC.TN.10] s 50(1): [VIC.TN.10] s 50(2): [VIC.TN.10] s 55: [EA.Intro.120] s 56(1): [EA.Intro.120] s 64(2): [VIC.TN.10] s 67(1): [VIC.TN.10] s 67(2): [VIC.TN.10] s 67(3): [VIC.TN.10]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cxxii

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes Evidence Act 2008 — cont s 67(4): [VIC.TN.10] s 68: [VIC.TN.10] s 79: [EA.79.450] s 79(1): [EA.79.450] s 97: [VIC.TN.10] s 98: [VIC.TN.10] s 99: [VIC.TN.10] s 100: [VIC.TN.10] s 101: [EA.98.120] s 108C: [EA.79.90], [EA.79.450], [EA.192.100] ss 113 to 115: [EA.Intro.210] s 115(7): [EA.116.180] s 116: [EA.116.180] s 116(1): [EA.116.180] s 116(2): [EA.116.180] s 127A: [EA.Intro.210] s 128: [EA.Intro.120] s 128A: [EA.131A.150] s 131A: [EA.Intro.180] s 138: [EA.114.240] s 150: [EA.Intro.120] s 164(3): [EA.164.60], [EA.164.120] s 164(4): [EA.Intro.210], [EA.164.120], [EA.165.570] s 164(4) to (6): [EA.164.60] s 164(5): [EA.164.120] s 164(6): [EA.164.120] s 165: [EA.164.120], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30], [EA.165.570] s 165(1)(a) to (f): [EA.165.570] s 165(1)(b): [EA.165.570] s 165(1)(f): [EA.Intro.180] s 165(3): [EA.116.180], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 165(4): [EA.165.570] s 165(5): [EA.165.570] s 165A: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30] s 165A(1): [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 165B: [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30], [EA.165.540] s 165B(2): [EA.165B.330] s 165B(3): [EA.20.420], [EA.165.570], [EA.165B.330] s 165B(4): [EA.165B.330] s 166: [VIC.TN.10] s 168: [VIC.TN.10] s 169: [VIC.TN.10] s 169(2): [VIC.TN.10] s 170: [VIC.TN.10] s 173: [VIC.TN.10] s 177: [VIC.TN.10] s 177(5): [VIC.TN.10] s 194: [EA.194.40] Ch 1: [EA.Intro.210] Ch 3: [EA.Intro.120] Pt 2.1: [EA.Intro.120] Sch Dict: [EA.117.60] Sch 2, Pt 1: [VIC.TN.10] Dictionary: [EA.128.600]

Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958: [EA.Intro.120] s 19C: [EA.Intro.120] s 19D: [EA.Intro.120] s 32C: [EA.Intro.120] s 42E: [EA.28.150] s 74: [EA.Intro.120] s 89B(1): [EA.Intro.120] s 89B(2)(e): [EA.Intro.120] s 135: [EA.Intro.120] Pt IIAA: [EA.Intro.120] Pt II: [EA.Intro.120] Pt IV: [EA.Intro.120] Pt IIA: [EA.Intro.120] Pt III: [EA.Intro.120]

Evidence Regulations 2009 reg reg reg reg reg

5: [VIC.TN.10] 7: [EA.99.60], [VIC.TN.10] 7(1): [EA.97.180] 7(2): [EA.98.180] 9: [EA.128.570]

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 s 35: [EA.Intro.240] s 158: [EA.117.60]

Jury Directions Act 2013: [EA.165.480] Jury Directions Act 2015: [EA.55.180], [EA.116.60], [EA.116.180], [EA.141.120], [EA.141.210], [EA.164.60], [EA.164.120], [EA.165.60], [EA.165.120], [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.60], [EA.165A.120], [EA.165A.210], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.60], [EA.165B.150], [EA.165B.210], [EA.165B.270], [EA.165B.300], [EA.165B.330], [EA.Ch.4.Pt.4.5.30], [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.210] s 5(4): [EA.20.420], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.330] s 6: [EA.20.420], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.330] s 7: [EA.20.420], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 7(2): [EA.20.420], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 10(2): [EA.101.480] s 12: [EA.20.420], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.330] ss 12 to 17: [EA.101.360], [EA.101.480], [EA.165.480] s 14: [EA.101.480], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.570] s 14(1): [EA.20.420], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.240], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.330] s 14(2): [EA.20.420], [EA.116.180],

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxxiii

Table of Statutes Jury Directions Act 2015 — cont [EA.165.240], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.330] ss 14 to 16: [EA.165.570] s 15: [EA.20.420], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.330] s 16: [EA.20.420], [EA.116.180], [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240], [EA.165B.330] s 18: [EA.55.330], [EA.165.570] ss 18 to 24: [EA.165.270], [EA.165.480] s 19: [EA.165.570] s 20(1)(b): [EA.55.330], [EA.165.570] s 21: [EA.165.570] s 22: [EA.165.570] s 23: [EA.165.480], [EA.165.570] s 23(2): [EA.165.570] s 24: [EA.165.570] ss 25 to 30: [EA.101.360], [EA.101.480] s 26: [EA.101.480] s 27(2): [EA.101.480] s 27(3): [EA.101.480] s 28: [EA.101.480] s 29: [EA.101.480] s 30: [EA.101.480] s 31: [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 32: [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 32(1): [EA.165A.240] s 32(2): [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 32(2)(b): [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 33: [EA.165.570], [EA.165A.240] s 34: [EA.165.570] s 35: [EA.116.180] s 36(1): [EA.116.180] s 36(2): [EA.116.180] s 36(3): [EA.116.180] s 37: [EA.116.180] s 38: [EA.165B.330] s 39: [EA.165B.330] s 39(1): [EA.165B.330] s 39(2): [EA.165B.330] s 39(3)(a): [EA.165B.330] s 39(3)(b): [EA.165B.330] s 40: [EA.165B.330] s 41: [EA.20.420] s 42: [EA.20.420] s 43: [EA.20.420] s 43(2): [EA.20.420] s 43(3): [EA.20.420] s 44: [EA.20.420] s 48: [EA.165.570] s 50: [EA.165.570] s 51: [EA.165.570] s 51(1): [EA.165.570] s 51(1)(c): [EA.165.570] s 51(2): [EA.165.570] s 52: [EA.165.570] s 52(4): [EA.165.570] s 52(5): [EA.165.570]

s s s s s s s s s

53: [EA.165.570] 54: [EA.165.570] 55: [EA.55.360], [EA.165.540] 61: [EA.141.210] 62: [EA.141.210] 63(1): [EA.141.210] 63(2): [EA.141.210] 64: [EA.141.210] 87: [EA.165.270] Legal Profession Uniform Law: [EA.117.60]

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 s 61: [EA.194.40]

Magistrates’ Court Civil Procedure Rules 1999 O 19: [EA.79.330]

Statute Law Amendment (Evidence Consequential Provisions) Act 2009: [EA.Intro.60], [EA.Intro.120] Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 O 44: [EA.79.330]

Western Australia Criminal Code 1913 s 52: [EA.164.150]

Evidence Act 1906 s 79F: [EA.69.270] s 82: [EA.71.60]

Norfolk Island Criminal Law Act 1960 s 410: [EA.8.90]

Evidence Act 2004 s 8: [EA.8.90] s 138: [EA.8.90] Ch 3: [EA.Intro.120], [EA.8.90]

New Zealand Evidence Act 2006 s 68(5): [EA.126J.30]

United States Federal Rules of Evidence: [EA.48.60], [EA.65.210], [EA.73.60] r r r r r r r r

703: [EA.79.240] 803(19): [EA.73.60] 803(20): [EA.73.60] 804(b)(4): [EA.73.60] 807: [EA.65.210] 1001: [EA.48.150] 1003: [EA.48.150] 1006: [EA.50.30]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] cxxiv

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Statutes

United Kingdom Civil Evidence Act 1968: [EA.67.60], [EA.100.60], [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.2.Div.2.30] Criminal Justice Act 1988 s 23: [EA.13.90] s 26: [EA.13.90] s 53: [EA.13.90]

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s 53: [EA.13.60], [EA.13.90]

Treaties and Conventions Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: [EA.81.60], [EA.84.60] s 76: [EA.84.60] s 76(2): [EA.84.60], [EA.85.210] s 76(2)(b): [EA.85.210]

Rules of the Supreme Court O 38, rr 21 to 33: [EA.67.60], [EA.100.60]

[RP.1.10]

European Convention on Human Rights Art 3: [EA.84.60]

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: [EA.138.600] International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948: [RP.1.10]

[All references are to paragraph numbers] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxxv

FORMAT OF THE COMMENTARY This commentary on the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) and the Evidence (National Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) is designed to provide assistance in the understanding and application of the uniform evidence law. An introduction details the history of the legislation and provides an overview of its structure and operation. The remainder of the commentary follows the order of the legislation. Summaries are provided of the provisions contained in Chapters and Divisions of the Act. However, the bulk of the commentary relates to individual sections. First, the particular legislative provision (with statutory notes) is extracted – identified by shading of the text. For the most part, provisions in the Acts are identical. However, there are differences, particularly in Chapter 1 (Preliminary), and where this occurs the provisions are separately extracted. Where the differences relate just to a subsection, only the different subsections are extracted separately. It should be noted that all the Acts except the Victorian Act use the term “defendant” to refer to an accused person in criminal proceedings, while the Victorian Act uses the term “accused”. The provisions are not separately extracted where this is the only difference between them. Secondly, reference is made to those parts of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) reports that relate to the provision (if applicable). References include the 1985 Interim Report (ALRC 26), the 1987 Final Report (ALRC 38) and the 2005 joint Report on Uniform Evidence Law prepared with the NSWLRC and the VLRC (ALRC 102). Thirdly, commentary on the provisions attempts to explain their content, relate them to other parts of the Act, discuss relevant authorities and, where applicable, relate the provisions to aspects of the existing common law which continue to have legal significance. Any differences between the Acts are highlighted and discussed. Reference is made to other legislation that may bear on the operation of the provisions in the Act. Appendices to the commentary contain the Evidence Regulations 1995 (Cth), the Evidence Regulation 2010 (NSW) and the Evidence Regulations 2009 (Vic). Additional Appendices include a table of notices required by the legislation, and extracts from related legislation. Finally a tables indicates the extent to which the Tasmanian Evidence Act 2001 corresponds to the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the other uniform evidence law. That Act may be found in the looseleaf and online version of this book.

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

cxxvii

INTRODUCTION [EA.Intro.30]

The law of evidence

When the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) received the Royal Assent on 23 February 1995, having passed through both Houses of the Federal Parliament some weeks before, an important milestone in the development of the Australian legal system was reached. In July 1979 the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) had been given the task of reforming the rules of evidence applicable in federal courts. More than 15 years later, the Commonwealth Act was enacted, to a very significant extent based on the ALRC proposals. It is a substantial piece of legislation – 197 sections, 100 printed pages in length. As the Federal Minister for Justice stated in March 1995, the “Evidence Act 1995 is one of the most important reforms in the administration of justice in Australia”. Its importance is not limited to the federal sphere. Within months of the passing of the Commonwealth Act, virtually identical legislation was enacted in New South Wales. In 2001 Tasmania enacted uniform evidence legislation, as did Norfolk Island in 2004. In 2008, Victoria enacted the Evidence Act 2008 (which came into force on 1 January 2010). In 2011, the ACT enacted its own Act, rather than simply apply the Commonwealth Act, and the Northern Territory adopted the uniform evidence law. It is likely that, in time, most other jurisdictions in Australia will follow the path to a uniform evidence law. The rules of evidence applied in Australian courts serve a number of functions – they regulate what material a court may consider in determining factual issues; how that material is to be presented in the court; and how the court actually goes about the task of deciding the factual issues on the basis of the evidence. They are a central part of the system of procedural justice. Procedural rules are critical to the resolution of disputes and the enforcement of substantive law in the courts. If the procedures are inefficient, access to justice is impaired. If the procedures are unjust, the outcome of the process is likely to be unjust. At the symbolic centre of the system of procedural justice is the trial. While what happens before and after the trial is important, the trial is the central and most public part of the justice system. It is the showcase where the community can observe the law in action and assess whether justice is being done. To a very great extent, trial procedure is determined by the law of evidence. In any trial system, there must be some rules regulating how evidence is produced in the court and how the court is to perform its task of deciding the issues before it. However, this is particularly true in an adversarial system. Australia has inherited the procedural paradigm of the adversarial trial. The parties to the proceeding, not the court, determine the issues which they will fight. The parties, not the court, obtain and produce (“lead”, “tender”, or

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

1

[EA.Intro.60]

Introduction

1

“adduce” ) the evidence in support of their case. The role of the trial judge (or magistrate) is to supervise proceedings, act as umpire, determine questions of law and apply the law to the facts as found by him or her on the evidence (or, if there is a jury, direct them in their task of determining the factual issues). While the adversarial model is modified in the criminal justice context by altering the balance to accord the accused certain procedural safeguards, even there adversarial elements predominate. Rules of evidence provide the legal framework by which the judge determines how evidence may be adduced, whether it will be taken into account (whether it is “admissible”); and how the tribunal of fact, judge or jury, is to decide the factual issues on the evidence (“use” of evidence, and “proof”). Until the enactment of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and its New South Wales counterpart enacted in June 1995, the rules of evidence were largely part of the “common law”, the product of long historical development by the courts themselves, with only limited statutory modification. As a result, they reflected a variety of principles and values. They lacked coherence and structure. They were complex, technical and difficult to find. Substantial reform was long overdue. However, the courts were not prepared to engage in this process, believing that it was best left to the legislature. For many years, no legislature was prepared to take on such a mammoth task. However, the 1979 reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission created the possibility of comprehensive rationalisation and reform of the law of evidence. This legislation is the product of that endeavour.

[EA.Intro.60]

Historical background

On 18 July 1979 the then Federal Attorney-General, Mr Peter Durack, referred to the ALRC the topic of a “review [of the] laws of evidence applicable in proceedings in Federal Courts and the Courts of the Territories with a view to producing a wholly comprehensive law of evidence based on concepts appropriate to modern conditions and anticipated requirements”. Mr Tim Smith, now Justice Smith of the Victorian Supreme Court, was appointed Commissioner in charge. The ALRC engaged in lengthy consultation and prepared two discussion papers and 16 research papers on aspects of evidence law (some of them written by the author of this commentary). An Interim Report (hereafter referred to in this work as ALRC 26) was produced in 1985 and a Final Report (hereafter referred to in this work as ALRC 38) in 1987. The Final Report included a draft Evidence Bill. In June 1988 the New South Wales Law Reform Commission recommended that, with minor qualifications, the ALRC’s proposals should be adopted in proceedings before New South Wales courts. For several years there was no explicit governmental response. In 1991, however, the New South Wales Government introduced into Parliament its own Evidence 1. In ALRC 38 at para 58, the ALRC commented on the terminology which it had used in the introduction to ALRC 38. It said that it had made use in the draft Bill of a number of commonly used terms and observed: “The bill is drafted on the basis that a witness in the witness box is ‘giving’ evidence. The party who is questioning the witness (whether in examination-in-chief or in cross-examination) is ‘adducing’ the evidence that the witness is giving. It is the court’s function to admit or refuse to admit the evidence so adduced.”

2

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.60]

Bill, which implemented the majority of the ALRC recommendations. In the same year, the Commonwealth Government produced its own Bill. For various reasons, neither Bill was voted on. However, at the end of 1991, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General gave in-principle support to substantially uniform evidence laws, based on the New South Wales and Commonwealth Bills. Consultation between New South Wales and the Commonwealth resulted in the production of essentially uniform legislation, represented by the Evidence Bill and the exposure draft Evidence Bill. On 10 February 1994 the Commonwealth Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The Committee tabled a generally favourable Interim Report on 7 June 1994. The Bill was passed by the House of Representatives on 19 October 1994. After the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs tabled a favourable Final Report on 8 December 1994, the Bill was considered by the Senate and finally passed, with some amendments, on 2 February 1995. The House of Representatives agreed to the amendments on 7 February 1995. The New South Wales Parliament enacted its own almost identical version of the Act soon after. It received the Royal Assent on 19 June 1995. In 2001 Tasmania enacted uniform evidence legislation, as did Norfolk Island in 2004. After the enactment of the Commonwealth and New South Wales Acts, a number of amendments were made to both, largely of a technical nature and largely uniform to both Acts. However, in 1997, the New South Wales Parliament enacted the Evidence Amendment (Confidential Communications) Act 1997, which incorporated into Pt 3.10 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) two new Divisions, Divs 1A and 1B. Similarly, in 2002, the New South Wales Parliament introduced amendments to the jury warning provisions, in relation to the evidence of children. No comparable provisions had been introduced into the Commonwealth Act and thus the uniformity earlier achieved has been diminished. In 2007 the Commonwealth did introduce, in the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Act 2007 (Cth), a Div 1A into Pt 3.10 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). However, as the title to that amending Act indicated, the new Div 1A, while expressed in almost identical language to the NSW Division, applied only to confidential communications made to journalists. In that respect, the Division was much narrower in application than the NSW Act. The Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Act 2011 significantly modified the Division but retained its limited application to confidential communications made to journalists. On 12 July 2004 the then Federal Attorney-General referred to the ALRC the topic of “the operation of the Evidence Act 1995”. Subsequently, the NSW Attorney-General gave a similar reference to the NSW Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) and the Victorian Attorney-General gave a reference to the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC), which included the topic of advising the Attorney-General “on the action required to facilitate the introduction of the Uniform Evidence Act into Victoria”. The three Commissions conducted a lengthy joint inquiry into the uniform evidence legislation, culminating in a joint report published in December 2005 entitled “Uniform Evidence Law” (hereafter referred to in this work as ALRC 102). The Report proposed substantial amendments to the Act and included draft amendments in an appendix. It noted © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

3

[EA.Intro.90]

Introduction

that, at the time of publication of the Report, the governments of Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory had indicated their intention to enact the uniform Evidence Act. The resulting Model Uniform Evidence Bill was approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in July 2007. In December 2007, the NSW Parliament enacted the Evidence Amendment Act 2007 (NSW). In very large part, the amendments reflected those proposed in ALRC 102. However, s 2 provided that the Act was only to commence on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation. In December 2008, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Evidence Amendment Act 2008 (Cth), which is substantially identical to the NSW amending legislation. Both amending Acts came into force at the beginning of 2009. These changes to the Act are summarised at [EA.Intro.180]. They brought the Commonwealth and NSW Acts close to uniformity, with the primary areas of difference relating to the scope of professional confidential relationship privilege in Div 1A of Pt 3.10 and the application of the privilege provisions in preliminary and ancillary proceedings (see [EA.Intro.210]). On 15 September 2008 the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) was enacted. It was almost identical to the Commonwealth and NSW Acts, notwithstanding some important differences (see [EA.Intro.210]). To give the Victorian Parliament time to repeal relevant parts of the Evidence Act 1958 (Vic) and to make other relevant amendments and transitional arrangements across the Victorian statute book (see, in particular, the Statute Law Amendment (Evidence Consequential Provisions) Act 2009), it did not come into force until 1 January 2010. However, there have been significant amendments, reducing the level of uniformity. In particular, in 2015 the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) was enacted, which deals comprehensively with warnings to juries in criminal proceedings. The warnings provisions in Pt 4.5 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) were amended so that they only apply in civil proceedings. In 2011, the ACT enacted the Evidence Act 2011 and it came into force on 1 March 2012, after the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995 was amended to delete its general application to ACT courts. The Northern Territory also enacted its own Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) and it came into force on 1 January 2013.

[EA.Intro.90]

Outline of the Act

The Act is divided into five Chapters, which are themselves divided into Parts and Divisions: Chapter 1 – Preliminary Part 1.1 Formal Matters Part 1.2 Application of this Act Chapter 2 – Adducing Evidence Part 2.1 Witnesses (containing divisions relating to competence and compellability, oaths and affirmations, examination-inchief, cross-examination and re-examination) Part 2.2 Documents Part 2.3 Other Evidence 4

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.90]

Chapter 3 – Admissibility of Evidence (containing Parts relating to the relevance rule, various exclusionary rules and discretions to exclude evidence) Chapter 4 – Proof Part 4.1 Standard of Proof Part 4.2 Judicial Notice Part 4.3 Facilitation of Proof Part 4.4 Corroboration Part 4.5 Warnings and Information Part 4.6 Ancillary Provisions Chapter 5 – Miscellaneous (including provisions on proof by affidavit, waiver of the rules of evidence and procedure for determining admissibility) This order is consistent with the intentions of the ALRC that the provisions should follow the order in which evidentiary issues ordinarily arise in a typical trial, from the moment that the first witness gets in the witness box to the determination of factual questions on the admissible evidence by the tribunal of fact (judge or jury) at the end of the trial. The bulk of the Act (Ch 3) is taken up with the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence. The ALRC explained the structure of this Chapter (ALRC 26, vol 1, para 510): In this part of the legislation, the rules that control the admissibility of items of evidence are set out. It is intended to be an exhaustive statement of the law. It follows what is, on the better view, the existing structure of the law. The rules will apply at each stage of a witness’ evidence — including cross-examination. The legislation commences with the basic rule on which the operation of this part of the Bill rests — all relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided in the Bill. All irrelevant evidence is not admissible. There then follow provisions dealing with different types of evidence. In each case, there is a primary rule which operates to exclude evidence of that type and in each case exceptions to that exclusionary rule are set out. The categories of evidence dealt with are documents, hearsay evidence, opinion evidence, admissions, judgments and convictions, character and conduct, identification evidence, privileged communications, evidence included in the public interest — the disclosure of which may endanger State interests, evidence of statements made in settlement negotiations, and evidence of reasons for decision of judge or jury. Finally the legislation contains several discretions [including a “relevance discretion”] to exclude evidence.

To assist in applying the rules of admissibility, the Act includes a flow chart immediately preceding s 55. The ALRC explained (ALRC 26, vol 1, para 510) how the rules should be applied in practice: As at present, the rules of admissibility are expressed in terms that relate to evidence and not the questions put to adduce the evidence. Objections relying on the rules of admissibility will be determined, as at present, in the light of the evidence that would be elicited by the question. It is assumed that in the absence of any provisions to the contrary the present approach to the application of the rules of admissibility will continue – ie, it will be for the parties to invoke the rules by objecting to the admission of evidence. As under existing law, the admissibility of a piece of evidence should be © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

5

[EA.Intro.120]

Introduction

determined by first asking whether it is relevant. If the answer to that question is in the negative it should be excluded. If the answer is in the affirmative, the party against whom it is led would then have to direct the court’s attention to one of the exclusionary rules set out in the legislation. The evidence, for example, may involve opinion and hearsay. It will be excluded unless it comes within one of the exceptions in each of the divisions dealing with such evidence. In cases where the relevance of evidence is tenuous, the courts will be able to exercise the discretion described above as the “relevance” discretion.

[EA.Intro.120]

An Evidence Code?

The Act is not a code of the law of evidence. A number of topics sometimes associated with the law of evidence are not dealt with. The ALRC stated (ALRC 26, vol 1, para 46) in ALRC 26 that: [T]he approach taken to the problem of definition has been to exclude: • Those topics which should be classified as part of the substantive law or which are so linked with the substantive law that they can only properly be considered in that context. These include legal and evidential burden of proof, parol evidence rule, res judicata, issue estoppel, presumptions. • Those topics of adjectival law which should be classified as procedural rather than evidentiary. The result of this distinction is the exclusion of rules such as those relating to the gathering of evidence (including evidence on commission), the perpetuation of testimony, who begins, notice of alibi evidence, no-case submissions and the standard of proof applicable. • Topics such as ordering witnesses out-of-court, bans on the publication of evidence, duties of the prosecution in calling of evidence, the powers of judges and parties to call witnesses and the suggestion that there should be changes in the operation of forensic scientific services.

As a result, the Act does not deal with the allocation of the burden of proof in respect of facts in issue, which the ALRC regarded as a matter of substantive law: see ALRC 26, vol 1, para 33. It took the same approach to the “evidential burden” (para 35), conclusive and persuasive presumptions (para 36), the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel, the parol evidence rule and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to assist in the interpretation of wills, deeds and other instruments (para 32). With the exception of provisions dealing with the drawing of inferences from documents and things in order to determine admissibility and a provision forbidding the drawing of an adverse inference from exercise of the right to silence, the Act does not deal with inferences (whether from evidence, or from the absence of evidence).2 Further, the Act is not a “code” in the technical sense since it does not, in general,3 affect the operation of other legislation (see s 8). Accordingly, to give the position in Victoria as an example, evidentiary provisions in the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (formerly titled the Evidence Act 1958) continue to operate. That Act, as substantially amended by the Statute Law 2. Accordingly, the common law principle in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; 32 ALJR 395; 76 WN (NSW) 278; [1959] ALR 367 continues to apply: see Australian Securities Commission v AS Nominees Ltd (1995) 62 FCR 504 at 516; Booth v Bosworth (2001) 114 FCR 39; 117 LGERA 168; [2001] FCA 1453 at [41]. 3. The qualification is in respect of the Commonwealth Act and inconsistent State and Territory legislation (see [EA.8.60]).

6

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.120]

Amendment (Evidence Consequential Provisions) Act 2009, contains the operative Parts and Divisions dealing with such topics as “[t]he means of obtaining evidence”, “Witness Identity Protection”, “Use of Audio Visual and Audio Links”, “Proof of Documents, Proof of Facts by Documents and Document Unavailability”, and “Oaths Affirmations Affidavits Declarations”. While some of these provisions seem to have little or no work to do given the terms of the Evidence Act 2008 and may have been retained out of an excess of caution,4 to a very large extent the provisions of this Act complement the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008, not affecting the operation of the provisions of the latter Act. For example, the provisions in Part IIA, dealing with audio visual and audio links, complement the broad discretionary powers of a court regarding the adducing of evidence from a witness (see ss 11 and 26). Section 19C deals with “incriminating answers” before Royal Commissions but does not modify the operation of s 128 in this Act, since the latter provision only applies to a “Victorian court”, as defined (which does not include a Royal Commission). The same is true in respect of s 19D, which abrogates legal professional privilege before a Royal Commission. Part IV, dealing with “Oaths Affirmations Affidavits Declarations”, complements Division 2 in Part 2.1 of the Evidence Act 2008. Section 135, dealing with the admissibility of certified court transcripts, provides a useful complement of the broad provisions relating to documents and official records in the Evidence Act 2008. However, it should be noted that Division 2A of Part II of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958, creating a privilege in respect of a sexual offence confidential communication, has the effect that otherwise admissible (under the Evidence Act 2008) evidence relating to such communications may not be adduced and, if adduced, is not admissible (s 32C). Similarly, Part IIAA prevents a protected witness’s identity or address from being adduced. Further, Division 9 of Part III confers a broad discretion on a court “to make any ruling or order that the court considers necessary to ensure fairness to all parties to the proceeding” (s 89B(1)) where a party to a civil proceeding has rendered “unavailable” (as defined) a particular document by, for example, destroying it. That discretion, which does not exist in the Evidence Act 2008, extends to making an order that “certain evidence not be adduced” (s 89B(2)(c)) or that “the evidential burden of proof be reversed in relation to a fact in issue” (s 89B(2)(e)). As regards criminal proceedings, the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) contains a significant number of evidentiary provisions (particularly in Part 8.2 Witnesses, introduced by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2009 (Vic)) which continue to operate, notwithstanding the Evidence Act 2008. Further, while most of the evidentiary provisions in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) have been repealed (including s 398A dealing with the admissibility of “propensity evidence”), some have been retained.5

4. For example, s 74, dealing with evidence of the contents of a will or codicil, appears superfluous, given that such evidence would plainly be admissible under the Evidence Act 2008. The provisions dealing with judicial notice of seals and signatures etc in Division 6 of Part III appear to add little or nothing to s 150 in the Evidence Act 2008. 5. See s 61 Jury warnings, s 404 Proof of marriage on trial for bigamy. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

7

[EA.Intro.120]

Introduction

As regards the operation of common law (ie non-statutory) rules of evidence in the context of the Act , s 9(1) in the NSW, Victorian, Tasmanian, ACT and Northern Territory Acts provides: (1) This Act does not affect the operation of a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to evidence in a proceeding to which this Act applies, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment.

For example, it may be assumed that the provisions of the Act do not override “the underlying principle of the accusatorial and adversarial system that it is for the prosecution to put its case both fully and fairly before the jury, before the accused is called on to announce the course that will be followed at trial”.6 Nevertheless, to a significant extent, the Act “covers the field” in a number of areas. Most significantly, it appears that Ch 3 of the Act constitutes a code for the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence, in the sense that common law rules relating to the admissibility of evidence are abrogated. This conclusion flows primarily from the terms of s 56(1), described as the “pivotal provision” by NSW Supreme Court justice McLelland CJ in Eq,7 which provides: Except as otherwise provided by this Act, evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is admissible in the proceeding.

If evidence is “relevant” in accordance with the very general definition in s 55, and not excluded by any provision in the Act, the effect of s 56(1) is that it “is admissible in the proceeding”. Any common law rule of admissibility which would render such evidence inadmissible would be inconsistent with the Act. Consequently, the effect of s 8 in the Commonwealth Act, and s 9 in the other UEL Acts, would be that such a common law rule would have no legal effect: see also below at [EA.8.60] and [EA.9.90]. Similarly, any evidence rendered inadmissible by the Act could not be saved by a common law rule to the contrary.8 While common law principles of admissibility may assist in determination of questions of relevance and discretionary exclusion, they are no longer binding legal rules. This analysis was adopted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in McNeill v The Queen (2008) 168 FCR 198; [2008] FCAFC 80, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. Discussing Ch 3 of the Norfolk Island Evidence Act 2004, Black CJ, Lander and Besanko JJ stated at [60]–[62]: After the passing of the Norfolk Island Evidence Act the common law rules have no part to play in determining what evidence may be admitted at a trial. The pivotal section in the Norfolk Island Evidence Act is s 56 ... A court must first determine whether the evidence sought to be tendered is relevant. “Relevant evidence” is defined in s 55 of the Norfolk Island Evidence Act. If relevant, evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by the Norfolk Island Evidence Act. It is to the Norfolk Island 6. R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299; 196 ALR 421; [2003] HCA 13 at [27]; see [EA.43.210] and [EA.106.60]. 7. See Telstra Corp v Australis Media Holdings (No 2) (1997) 41 NSWLR 346 at 349B. 8. For example, s 102 provides that “credibility evidence” (defined in s 101A) about a witness is not admissible. That provision, which the Act describes as “the credibility rule”, is succeeded by three sections in Pt 3.7 containing detailed exceptions to the rule. The Victorian Court of Appeal held in BA v The Queen [2012] VSCA 285 that “Part 3.7 of the Act covers the field by establishing a general rule subject to a number of limited exceptions”, so that any common law rule permitting evidence as to the general reputation for veracity of a witness was ousted (Buchanan AJA at [21]–[25]).

8

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.120]

Evidence Act which a court must look to determine whether relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding. Section 56 not only abrogates the common law rules of evidence, it provides that all relevant evidence will be admissible except as provided in Chapter 3. It is clear that the Norfolk Island Evidence Act is intended to cover the field in relation to the admissibility of relevant evidence.

This conclusion reflects the weight of authority,9 notwithstanding the expression of contrary views in the past.10 The position should now be regarded as settled. As stated in ALRC 102 at para 2.9, “[s]tated simply, Chapter 3 of the uniform Evidence Acts governs admissibility issues”, although, of course, rules of admissibility in other legislation continue to apply. However, it is true that dissenting voices continue to be heard. In Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588, Heydon J held that the common law “basis rule” (or “proof of assumption rule”), which requires “that the ‘facts’ and ‘assumptions’ [on which an opinion is based] … be proved before the [opinion] evidence was admissible” continues to survive under the Evidence Act (and particularly s 79). Heydon J stated at [110]: The respondent asked: “Does s 79 provide for the common law proof of assumption rule?” That was not the correct question. The correct question was: “Does s 79 abolish that rule?” The Act is far from being a complete code. It often deals with complex and

9. See, for example, Telstra Corp v Australis Media Holdings (No 2) (1997) 41 NSWLR 346 at 349–350; Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 640; [2000] NSWSC 1077 at [28]; EI Dupont de Nemours & Co v Imperial Chemical Industries plc (2002) 54 IPR 304; [2002] FCA 230 at [46]. 10. Newcastle Wallsend Coal Co Pty Ltd v Court of Coal Mines Regulation (1997) 42 NSWLR 351 at 392F per Smart J; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kane (1997) 140 FLR 468; Abigroup Ltd v Akins (1997) 42 NSWLR 623 at 638–639 per Bainton J; WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Tsougranis (2002) 117 IR 203; [2002] NSWIRComm 282, Haylen J at [35]–[40] ; Meteyard v Love (2005) 65 NSWLR 36; 224 ALR 588; 56 ACSR 487; [2005] NSWCA 444, Basten JA at [106]–[123]; Pepsi Seven-Up Bottlers (Aust) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1995) 62 FCR 289; 31 ATR 445; 132 ALR 632 at 643–644 (ALR); O’Brien v Gillespie (1997) 41 NSWLR 549 at 557; R v Ung (2000) 112 A Crim R 344; 173 ALR 287; [2000] NSWCCA 195 at [53]; Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty (2004) 218 CLR 592; 212 ALR 357; [2004] HCA 60; Harkins v Butcher (2002) 55 NSWLR 558; [2002] NSWCA 237, Handley JA at [15]. In this regard, note should be made of the decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510; [1999] NSWCCA 189. The court held (at [25]) that the “res gestae” principle stated by the High Court in O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566; [1946] ALR 535 had not been abolished by the Act. However, in reaching this conclusion, the court applied the test of McLelland CJ in Eq in Telstra Corp v Australis Media Holdings (No 2) (1997) 41 NSWLR 346. The court considered that evidence of events which form “an integral part of a connected series of events”, including an event in issue, will satisfy the test of relevance in s 55 and will not be excluded by other provisions in the Act (particularly s 97). The significance of the common law principle was to demonstrate how the evidence could be relevant in a non-tendency way (and thus avoid exclusion under s 97 or s 101). Accordingly, the court’s decision is not inconsistent with the view that Ch 3 is, in practical terms, a Code. In ALRC 102, it was noted at para 2.9 that “[r]eference to the common law can facilitate an understanding of underlying concepts and helps to identify the changes brought about by Chapter 3”. Other authorities indicate that, to the extent that the ““res gestae”” doctrine extends beyond elucidation of relevance, it does not survive: W v The Queen (2001) 115 FCR 41; 124 A Crim R 545; [2001] FCA 1648 at [43], [97]; R v Fairbairn [2011] ACTSC 78; 212 A Crim R 32 at [100]. In Karam v The Queen [2015] VSCA 50, the Victorian Court of Appeal stated at [69] that “this doctrine has no application under the Evidence Act” and observed that “it has been replaced by the statutory [hearsay] exception under s 66(2)(b)” of the Act (although it may be noted that the better view is that the replacement is actually s 65(2)(b), not s 66(2)(b)). © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

9

[EA.Intro.120]

Introduction

important subjects, like expert evidence, in very general words. Sometimes the Act changes the previous law. Sometimes it repeats it. At many points it assumes the continuance of the common law.

Heydon J gave the example11 of “the common law exception to the hearsay rule permitting experts to rely on the writings of others in the relevant area of expertise as a basis for their opinion” and observed that, while s 79 says nothing about that rule, nothing in s 79 has abolished it. However, this analysis is unpersuasive. The reason that experts are permitted to rely on “the writings of others” is that such material is relevant to the opinion expressed (and thus indirectly relevant to a fact in issue) and the hearsay rule in s 59 does not render the writings inadmissible (because the evidence of the writings is adduced for a reason other than “to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the [writer] intended to assert by the representation”: see [EA.59.180]). As regards the proposition that the proof of assumption rule at common law continues to apply under the Act, Heydon J was in dissent and this view should be considered as having been rejected by the other members of the High Court. French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ referred to “the basis rule” at [41] as “a rule by which opinion evidence is to be excluded unless the factual bases upon which the opinion is proffered are established by other evidence” and then stated: Whether that rule formed part of the common law of evidence need not be examined. It may be accepted that the Law Reform Commission’s interim report on evidence denied the existence of such a common law rule and expressed the intention to refrain from including a basis rule in the legislation the Commission proposed and which was later enacted as the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

It appears clear that the plurality accepted that s 79 (and the rest of Chapter 3) does not incorporate “the basis rule” and that, as a result, issues of this type are left, as intended by the ALRC, to the discretions in Pt 3.11. Putting that conclusion in different words, the failure to incorporate the common law basis rule in s 79 meant that it had been effectively abrogated by the Act. That is, that common law rule which would render such evidence inadmissible would be inconsistent with the Act and abrogated by s 56(1). However, there is an interesting question whether s 56(1) distinguishes between inadmissibility rules and “powers to exclude” evidence. Putting the matter more precisely, do the words “is admissible” in s 56(1) mean “is to be admitted” or only “is admissible notwithstanding any common law inadmissibility rule to the contrary but may still be excluded pursuant to a common law power to exclude”? In Haddara v The Queen (2014) 43 VR 53; 241 A Crim R 93; [2014] VSCA 100, Redlich and Weinberg JJA (Priest JA dissenting) held that the common law discretion to exclude any evidence, whether confessional or real, on the ground that to receive it would be unfair to a criminal defendant (in the sense that the trial would be unfair) is not caught by the operation of s 56(1) and, accordingly, 11. It should also be noted that Heydon J at [111] referred to s 80, which expressly abolishes two common law rules, as support for the proposition that, unless expressly abolished, the common law rules of evidence continue to apply. The difficulty with this argument is that the ALRC made it clear in the Interim Report on Evidence at para 743 that the reason for s 80 was “to abolish [the rules], so as to make clear the stance of the draft legislation on the area and to preclude so far as possible re-emergence of the rule via the relevance discretions”. Thus, s 80 is not inconsistent with the proposition that Chapter 3 was intended to codify the rules of admissibility.

10

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.150]

continues to apply in UEL jurisdictions. While the common law certainly distinguishes between admissibility rules and exclusionary discretions, it has to be said that it is very difficult to support such an approach in the context of Chapter 3. After all, that Chapter, with its heading “Admissibility of Evidence”, includes within it several provisions which enact not an “(in)admissibility rule” but a “discretion” to exclude evidence (for example, s 90, s 135, s 138). The diagram in the “Introductory Note” at the beginning of the Chapter includes at the bottom a reference to “discretion to exclude” and, if the answer to whether the discretion should be exercised is “no”, the evidence “is admissible”.12 While it is entirely understandable that Redlich and Weinberg JJA were keen to hold that the power of a court to exclude evidence where to receive it would be unfair to a criminal defendant had not been abrogated by the UEL, the fact is that there was a much simpler route to that conclusion than the one adopted. Section 11(2) provides that “the powers of a court with respect to abuse of process in a proceeding are not affected” by this Act (see [EA.11.90]). There can be no doubt that those powers would extend to exclusion of evidence on the basis that to receive it would be unfair to a criminal defendant (in the sense that the trial would be unfair). Nevertheless, this decision creates a limitation on the operation of s 56(1) in respect of common law discretions to exclude evidence, although the practical significance of that limitation may be doubted given that it is difficult to point to any common law discretions to exclude evidence other than the one applied in Haddara and those actually enacted in the UEL.13 A similar analysis to that adopted in respect of s 56 has led to the conclusion that s 12 indicates a clear legislative intention that the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) abrogate “the operation of a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to” the competence and compellability of witnesses.14 Similarly, in Gattellaro v Westpac Banking Corp (2004) 204 ALR 258; [2004] HCA 6 Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Hayne and Heydon JJ observed at [17] that“there would appear to be no room for the operation of the common law doctrine of judicial notice, strictly so called, since the enactment” of s 144.15

[EA.Intro.150]

Differences from the common law

The Act, as originally enacted, was not a restatement in statutory form of common law and existing statutory rules of evidence. Significant reforms were introduced. Some examples of changes to the then existing common law rules may be noted: • a witness attempting to refresh his or her memory in court does not necessarily have to use a document made when the events were “fresh in the memory”: s 32; 12. Curiously, Redlich and Weinberg JJA at [64] referred to the “Introductory Note” to support their argument, but they made no reference to the diagram. 13. In Haddara, Redlich and Weinberg JJA referred at [49] to the situation “where evidence may controvert an acquittal”, but the common law principles in that context are presumably an aspect of the powers of a court with respect to preventing an abuse of process (or perhaps part of the law “relating to res judicata or issue estoppel”: see s 93(c)). 14. See R v Glasby (2000) 115 A Crim R 465; [2000] NSWCCA 83 at [39]–[54]. 15. See also Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] NSWCA 145 at [102], [223]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

11

[EA.Intro.150]

Introduction

• the rule in Walker v Walker (1937) 57 CLR 630 (requiring the tender of documents the subject of a “call”) was abolished: s 35; • cross-examination of a party’s own witness is permissible if the witness gives “unfavourable” evidence (without the requirement of a finding that the witness is “hostile”): s 38; • a trial judge may disallow leading questions in cross-examination in appropriate circumstances: s 42; • the “original document” rule for proving the contents of documents was abolished, replaced by a more flexible system: Pt 2.2; • a “view” is to be treated as evidence: s 54; • the hearsay rule was substantially modified in both civil and criminal proceedings: Pt 3.2; • the “ultimate issue” and “common knowledge” rules in respect of opinion evidence were abolished: s 80; • “tendency and coincidence” evidence (perhaps better known as “propensity” and “similar fact” evidence) is inadmissible unless prior notice is given and the evidence has “significant probative value”: Pt 3.6; • cross-examination regarding a matter relevant only to the credibility of a witness was only permissible if it had “substantial probative value”: s 103; • the “finality rule” for cross-examination on collateral matters was significantly qualified: s 106 (although the common law itself moved further in this regard in recent years); • the sole purpose test for legal professional privilege (“client legal privilege”) was replaced by a dominant purpose test: ss 118, 119 (which reform has since been adopted by the common law); • a “professional confidential relationship privilege” was created in NSW: Div 1A of Pt 3.10 of the New South Wales Act only; • a witness may be forced “in the interests of justice” to answer questions notwithstanding the privilege against self-incrimination; if so required, the witness is given a certificate providing both use and indirect use immunity: s 128; • a court may refuse to admit any evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party; misleading or confusing; or cause or result in undue waste of time (referred to by the ALRC as the “relevance discretion”): s 135; • a court may limit the use to be made of evidence if there is a danger that a particular use of the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party or be misleading or confusing: s 136; • “improperly or illegally obtained evidence” is “not to be admitted” unless the party seeking its admission persuades the court that the balance of “desirability” supports admission: s 138; • the admission of computer produced evidence is facilitated: ss 146, 147; 12

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.180]

• various procedural safeguards were introduced (including a “request” system): Div 1 of Pt 4.6. There were also important changes specific to criminal proceedings. Some examples are: • the trial judge might permit the spouse, child or parent of the defendant to choose not to testify: s 18, subject to s 19; • the trial judge might comment on a failure of the defendant to give evidence (but the comment “must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned”): s 20; • the “voluntariness” rule of admissibility for confessions was abolished, replaced by provisions which focus on extreme misconduct: s 84; reliability: s 85; fairness: s 90; and “improperly or illegally obtained evidence”: s 138; • “tendency and coincidence” evidence (perhaps better known as “propensity” and “similar fact” evidence) is admissible against a criminal defendant if “the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant” (rather than application of the “Pfennig test”): s 101; • where a defendant adduces evidence of good character in a “particular respect”, the prosecution may only rebut with evidence of bad character in that respect: s 110; • legal professional privilege (“client legal privilege”) in respect of particular evidence is lost where the evidence is adduced by a defendant in criminal proceedings: s 123; • a “sexual assault communications privilege” was created in NSW: Div 1B of Pt 3.10 of the New South Wales Act only; • identification evidence is not admissible unless an identification parade was held (with various exceptions, including where it was reasonable not to have held such a parade): ss 113 – 115; • “corroboration” requirements are abolished, replaced by a warning procedure for “evidence of a kind that may be unreliable”: ss 164 and 165.

[EA.Intro.180]

Amendments implementing ALRC 102

As noted above, in 2007 the NSW Parliament enacted the Evidence Amendment Act 2007 and in 2008 the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Evidence Amendment Act 2008. In very large part, the amendments reflected those proposed in ALRC 102. In addition, the more recent UEL Acts incorporate the same changes to the original uniform legislation. The most important of the changes made to the Commonwealth and NSW Acts (and which form part of the other UEL Acts) may be summarised as follows: • Competence to give evidence (s 13(1)). A witness is no longer required to be “capable of giving a rational reply to a question about a fact”; it is sufficient that the witness has “the capacity to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the fact”. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

13

[EA.Intro.180]

Introduction

• Competence to give unsworn evidence (s 13(5)). A court is no longer required to be satisfied that the witness “understands the difference between the truth and a lie”. All that is necessary is that the requirements of s 13(1) in relation to general competence are satisfied and “the court has told the person” a number of specific things (including “that it is important to tell the truth”). • De facto partner (ss 18, 20). The term “de facto spouse” in s 18 (“Compellability of spouses and other in criminal proceedings”) and s 20 (“Comment on failure to give evidence”) is replaced by the term “de facto partner”, which is defined in the Dictionary to the Act. • Evidence in narrative form (s 29(2)). A court may on its own motion (without any application of the party that called the witness) direct that a witness give evidence wholly or partly in narrative form. • Improper questions (s 41). In the Commonwealth, NSW, Tasmania and the ACT, the provision has been made mandatory and the categories of improper questions have been expanded. The provision in Victoria and the Northern Territory adopts a generally discretionary approach but creates special protections for “vulnerable witnesses”. • Proof of voluminous or complex documents (s 50). The requirement that an application to adduce evidence of the contents of documents in the form of a summary must be made prior to hearing has been deleted. • Definition of hearsay evidence (s 59). Prior to the amendments to s 59, evidence of a previous representation made by a person was only classified as hearsay if the person making the representation intended to assert a fact that was implied in the representation. Now the question is whether “it can reasonably be supposed that” the person intended to assert that fact. • Evidence admitted for a non-hearsay use (s 60). In response to the decision of the High Court in Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594, s 60 has been amended to make it clear that the hearsay rule does not apply to such evidence, regardless of whether it is first-hand or more remote hearsay (with the sole exception in criminal proceedings of evidence of an admission). • First-hand hearsay in civil proceedings where the person who made the representation “has been or is to be called to give evidence” (s 64(3)). The hearsay rule does not apply to such evidence, with the deletion of the requirement that the occurrence of the asserted fact “was fresh in the memory of the person who made the representation”. • First-hand hearsay in criminal proceedings where the person who made the representation is not available to give evidence (s 65). For statements “against interest” (s 65(2)(d)) there is now an additional requirement that the previous representation had to be “made in circumstances that make it likely that the representation is reliable”. • First-hand hearsay in criminal proceedings where the person who made the representation has been or will be called as a witness (s 66). In response to the decision of the High Court in Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606, s 66(2A) has been introduced to make clear that 14

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.180]

the quality of “freshness” (in respect of the test “fresh in the memory” in s 66(2)) will not be confined to the time which elapses between the occurrence of the relevant event and the making of a representation about the event. • Contemporaneous representations about health, etc (s 66A). The hearsay exception for evidence of a previous representation that was a contemporaneous representation about the person’s health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind, that was formerly applicable to both first-hand and more remote hearsay (s 72, prior to the amendments), is now only applicable to first-hand hearsay. • Hearsay exception for “electronic communications” (s 71). This provision was amended to replace the words “a document recording a message that has been transmitted by electronic mail or by a fax, telegram, lettergram or telex” with the words “an electronic communication”, as defined in s 5 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000. • Hearsay exception for Aboriginal “traditional laws and customs” (s 72). A discrete hearsay exception is created for this evidence, as defined in the Dictionary to the Act. • Opinion exception for Aboriginal “traditional laws and customs” (s 78A). A discrete exception is created to the opinion rule in s 76 for this evidence, as defined in the Dictionary to the Act. • Opinion evidence of child development and child behaviour (s 79(2)). This provision “clarifies” that such evidence will not be excluded by the opinion rule in s 76. • Reliability of admissions by defendants in criminal proceedings (s 85). In response to the decision of the High Court in Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216, which interpreted the term “official questioning” narrowly, this provision now applies where an admission was “made … to, or in the presence of, an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence” (s 85(1)(a)). • Evidence of silence (s 89). A reference to silence “in the course of official questioning” has been replaced by a reference to silence in response to “an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence”. • The tendency rule (s 97). The provision has been amended to make it clear that the onus is on the party seeking to have the evidence ruled admissible to persuade the court that “reasonable notice” has been given and that the evidence “will” have “significant probative value”. • The coincidence rule (s 98). The provision has been amended to make it clear that evidence of events that the court concludes were not similar or the circumstances in which they occurred were not similar is still caught by the provision and must comply with its requirements in order to be admissible. In addition, it is made clear that the onus is on the party © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

15

[EA.Intro.180]

Introduction

seeking to have the evidence ruled admissible to persuade the court that “reasonable notice” has been given and that the evidence “will” have “significant probative value”. • Credibility evidence (s 101A). In response to the decision of the High Court in Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96, which interpreted the “credibility rule” in s 102 in a very literal manner, s 101A is introduced. It defines “credibility evidence” to include evidence that is relevant because it affects the assessment of the credibility of a witness or person and is also relevant for some other purpose for which it is not admissible. • Credibility evidence adduced in cross-examination of a witness (s 103). The test in s 103 of “substantial probative value” is replaced by a test of “could substantially affect the assessment of the credibility of the witness”. • Cross-examination of an accused as to credit (s 104). This provision has been amended to avoid confusing overlap with the character evidence provisions. • Rebutting a denial in cross-examination as to credibility (s 106). This provision now applies not only to a “denial” but also where the witness “did not admit or agree to” the substance of the evidence. Further, such rebuttal may be permitted “if the court gives leave” under s 106(1)(b). There is no longer a requirement for the rebuttal evidence to fit into one of the listed categories in s 106 (those categories are now simply circumstances in which leave is not required – s 106(2)). • Credibility evidence in respect of a person who is not a witness but who made an out-of-court representation that has been admitted into evidence (s 108A). This provision permits such evidence if “the evidence could substantially affect the assessment of the person’s credibility”. Section 108B imposes further restrictions on admission of such evidence where the person who made the representation is a defendant in criminal proceedings (who does not testify). • Expert credibility evidence (s 108C). This provision creates an exception to the credibility rule for expert evidence concerning the credibility of a witness. Section 108C is intended to “clarify that evidence can be led under the section in relation to the development and behaviour of children generally and the development and behaviour of victims of child sexual assault”. • Legal advice privilege (s 118). The provision has been amended to ensure that privilege attaches to any confidential document prepared for the dominant purpose of legal advice being provided – not just a document prepared by the client or the lawyer. • Loss of client legal privilege: consent and related matters (s 122). The provision has been amended to adopt the common law test of whether the client or party has “acted in a way that is inconsistent with” the maintenance of the privilege. The prior statutory tests of “the client or party knowingly and voluntarily disclosed the substance of the evidence” and “the substance of the evidence has been disclosed with 16

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.180]

the express or implied consent of the client or party” have become circumstances in which the broader test “is taken to” be satisfied. • Privilege in respect of self-incrimination (s 128). The NSW provision has been amended to ensure that the protection of a certificate extends not only to a proceeding in a NSW court (which includes a person or body that is required to apply the laws of evidence) but also to any proceeding before any person or body “authorised by a law of this State, or by consent of parties, to hear, receive and examine evidence”. A new provision also makes it clear that the protection is maintained even if the granting of the certificate was in error: s 128(8). • Privilege in respect of self-incrimination – application to disclosure orders (s 128A). This new provision creates a mechanism whereby privilege against self-incrimination claims may be determined in respect of information ordered by a court in a civil proceeding to be disclosed in connection with a freezing or search order (or, in NSW, other order under Pt 25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005). • Privilege in preliminary court proceedings (s 131A). This provision extends the application of the privileges in Pt 3.10 (other than the provisions of ss 123 and 128) to pre-trial stages of civil and criminal proceedings. • Electronic communications (s 161). The provision creating presumptions regarding “telexes” has now been amended to refer to an “electronic communication”, defined in the Dictionary to the Act to have the same meaning as it has in the Electronic Transactions Act 2000. • Jury warning in respect of oral evidence of questioning by an investigating official of a defendant (s 165(1)(f)). In response to the decision of the High Court in Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216, which interpreted the term “official questioning” narrowly, this provision now applies to “questioning by an investigating official”. • Jury warning in respect of children’s evidence (s 165A). The terms of ss 165A and 165A have been combined into one provision. One substantive change is that the new provision has been drafted to expressly prohibit the giving of a warning about unreliability “solely on account of the age of the child”. • Jury warning in respect of delay in prosecution (s 165B). This provision (which has some differences between the jurisdictions) imposes significant limitations on a jury warning in respect of forensic disadvantages that may have arisen from delay in prosecution. The warning can only be given where the court “is satisfied that the defendant has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the consequences of delay”. “Significant forensic disadvantage” is not to be regarded as being established “by the mere existence of a delay”. Where a jury warning is to be given, the judge “must not in any way suggest to the jury that it would be dangerous or unsafe to convict the defendant solely because of the delay or the forensic disadvantage suffered because of the consequences of the delay”. • Formal admissions and consents (s 184). The requirement that the defendant in a criminal proceeding have been “advised … by his or her © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

17

[EA.Intro.210]

Introduction

lawyer” to make a particular admission regarding a matter of fact, or to give any consent, is no longer essential. It will be sufficient if “the court is satisfied that the defendant understands the consequences of making the admission or giving the consent”. • Advance rulings and findings (s 192A). In response to the decision of the High Court in TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124, this new provision permits a court to give advance rulings and findings in relation to evidence (ie before the evidence is adduced in the proceeding).

[EA.Intro.210]

Differences between the Acts

The Evidence Acts in the Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory are almost identical, justifying the title of this work – Uniform Evidence Law. However, there are some important differences: • Improper questions (s 41). The Commonwealth/NSW/ACT general provision in s 41(1) is mandatory (“must disallow a question put to a witness in cross-examination, or inform the witness that it need not be answered”), in contrast with the comparable Victorian/Northern Territory provision (“may disallow …”). However, the Victorian/Northern Territory provision creates a special category of improper questioning of a “vulnerable witness” (defined in s 41(4)) where the court “must” act “unless the court is satisfied that … it is necessary for the question to be put” (s 41(2)). The Commonwealth/NSW/ACT provision deals only with an improper “question” while the Victorian/Northern Territory provision also deals with “improper questioning” (defined in s 41(3) to mean “a sequence of questions”). The Commonwealth/NSW/ACT provision defines an improper question in terms of the court’s “opinion” that it falls into a specified category (and requires the court to take into account the matters specified in s 41(2) in forming that opinion), while the Victorian/Northern Territory provision defines “an improper question or improper questioning” simply in terms of those categories. • Professional confidential relationship privilege (Div 1A of Pt 3.10). The NSW Act permits a court to “direct that evidence not be adduced in a proceeding if the court finds that adducing it would disclose a protected confidence” or related information. “Protected confidence” is defined to mean a communication made by a person in confidence to another person who was acting in a professional capacity and under an express or implied obligation not to disclose the confidence (for example, doctor/patient; nurse/patient; psychologist/client; therapist/client; counsellor/client; social worker/client; accountant/client; private investigator/client; journalist/source). The court is required to balance the nature and extent of the harm that would or might be caused to a protected confider if the evidence is adduced against the desirability of the evidence being given. The Victorian/ACT/Northern Territory Acts contain no such “privilege”, while the Commonwealth Act defines “protected confidence” in a way that limits the scope of the privilege to communications to journalists (and requires the court to “take into account, and give the greatest weight to, any risk of prejudice to national security”). 18

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.210]

• Sexual assault communications privilege. This Division was first incorporated in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) by the Evidence Amendment (Confidential Communications) Act 1997 (NSW). No comparable Division is included in the other UEL Acts. In 1999, the Division was substantially amended by removing the substantive provisions and incorporating them in Pt 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Similar substantive provisions to those in the NSW Criminal Procedure Act 1986 are found in Div 2 of Pt II of the Evidence Act 1958 (Vic). • Privilege in respect of self-incrimination – application to disclosure orders (s 128A). This provision creates a mechanism whereby privilege against self-incrimination claims may be determined in respect of information ordered by a court in a civil proceeding to be disclosed in connection with a freezing or search order. The NSW provision extends the application of the provision to any “other order under Pt 25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005”. • Privilege in preliminary court proceedings (s 131A). This provision in the NSW/Victorian/ACT/Northern Territory Acts extends the application of the privileges in Pt 3.10 (other than the provisions of s 123 and s 128) to pre-trial stages of civil and criminal proceedings (“a process or order of a court that requires the disclosure of information or a document”). In Victoria, and possibly NSW/ACT/Northern Territory, it extends to search warrants. The Commonwealth provision is much more limited, only extending the application of the “privilege” in relation to confidential communications made to journalists (Div 1A of Pt 3.10) to pre-trial stages of civil and criminal proceedings (but not to investigatory and other non-curial processes such as search warrants or notices to produce issued by investigatory agencies). • Jury warnings generally (Pt 4.5). In 2015 the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) was enacted, which deals comprehensively with warnings to juries in criminal proceedings. The warnings provisions in Pt 4.5 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) were amended so that they only apply in civil proceedings. • Jury warning in respect of delay in prosecution (s 165B). In s 165B(2) of the Commonwealth/ACT/Northern Territory Acts, application for the giving of a warning to the jury must be made by “the defendant”, while under the comparable NSW provision it may be made by “a party” (which would include the prosecutor). The NSW/Northern Territory provision, unlike the other UEL Acts (except for Victoria), expressly provides that a “significant forensic disadvantage” includes “the fact that any potential witnesses have died or are not able to be located” and “the fact that any potential evidence has been lost or is otherwise unavailable” (s 165(7)). • Definition of person who is “not available to give evidence about a fact”. The NSW, Victorian and Northern Territory Acts provide in cl 4(1) of Part 2 of the Dictionary that, as well as the other circumstances specified in the Commonwealth/ACT Acts, a person is not available to give © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

19

[EA.Intro.240]

Introduction

evidence about a fact if “the person is mentally or physically unable to give the evidence and it is not reasonably practicable to overcome that inability”. There are also less important differences that should be noted. In the Victorian Act, the defendant in criminal proceedings is referred to as “the accused”.16 There are also necessary differences arising from occasional reference to particular courts and provisions. In particular, there are differences in the terms of the Preliminary provisions in Chapter 1 of the Act. Finally, the Tasmanian Act has a large number of significant differences from the other UEL Acts. There are significant omissions (for example, the Tasmanian Act does not include ss 113–115) and there are a number of provisions that are unique to Tasmania (for example, s 127A). Some provisions are similar to other comparable UEL provisions but incorporate significant changes (for example, s 164(4)).

[EA.Intro.240]

Policy framework

Given the wide application of the Act and the fact that it constitutes a major reform of the law of evidence, interpretation of individual provisions should occur in the context of the policy framework on which it is built: see s 3 in the NSW Act, s 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and s 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic). The Act substantially follows the ALRC proposals and those proposals were based on the policy framework summarised by the ALRC in its ALRC 38 Report. That policy framework has not been changed or qualified by ALRC 102 or the amendments following on that Report. A clear distinction was drawn by the ALRC between civil and criminal trials (ALRC 38, para 34): • Fact-finding. Although a civil trial is not a “search for truth” it is nonetheless of critical importance that the courts make a genuine attempt to find the facts. If this is not done, the system will be seen to be at best arbitrary and at worst biased and will lose the confidence and respect of the community. Any limitation on the attempt to find the facts requires justification. • Procedural fairness. The parties must be given, and feel they have had, a fair hearing. This will depend in part on the extent to which they have been able to present their case – “litigant prevented from supporting his case … is bound to feel dissatisfied”. It will also depend upon the extent to which they have been able to challenge and meet the case presented against them. Again, limits require justification. This need has been recognised by the law in its development of the concept of natural justice. It requires that a person is entitled to be given a proper hearing before a determination is made affecting his or her rights. The fairness of the proceeding will also depend on the conduct of the judicial officer – the more arbitrary or subjective it appears to be, the less acceptable to all concerned. It is also important that there be the appearance and, if possible, the reality of control by law rather than judicial whim. Detailed rules of evidence lend to the trial the appearance of 16. Curiously, this particular move away from uniformity was not carried through comprehensively. The definition of “admission” in the Dictionary refers to “a defendant in criminal proceedings”. There has also been a failure to ensure that all the statutory Notes in the Act reflect this change in terminology. For example, the Note to s 17 states that “Associated defendant is defined in the Dictionary” when, in fact, the term “associated accused” is defined in the Dictionary to the Act.

20

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.240]

proceedings controlled by the law, not by the individual trial judge’s discretion, and reduce the scope for subjective decisions. • Expedition and cost. The parties and the community will judge the civil trial system in part by considering its efficiency. Any rules or proposals must be evaluated in the light of their effect on the time and cost of the trial. • Quality of rules. To the extent that the system operates under rules, the more anomalous, technical, rigid, and obscure the rules seem, the more the system’s acceptability is lessened. The parties in a case can meet the situation by agreeing to ignore or waive the more unsatisfactory rules, as widely happens in the conduct of trials at present, particularly civil trials. This, however, only results in the rules lying in wait for the unwary and the party who does not have legal representation. Any rules or proposals that are complicated, difficult to understand or apply, produce anomalies, lack flexibility where this is needed or are very technical, require justification.

In respect of the criminal trial, the ALRC expressed the view that, like the civil trial, it involves an attempt to establish the facts, and its credibility depends substantially on that attempt being a genuine one. It considered that its credibility also depended on procedural fairness, efficiency and the quality of particular rules. Nevertheless, the ALRC asserted that the nature and purpose of the criminal trial differ significantly from those of civil trials – the accusatorial model requires that the prosecution prove guilt without the accused being obliged to assist and is designed to accord the accused certain procedural advantages over the prosecution. These advantages flow ultimately from the public interest in minimising the risk of convicting an innocent person.17 The ALRC made the following points (ALRC 38, para 35): • Accusatorial system. A criminal trial is not directed to resolving a dispute between parties. Although the Crown makes allegations and these are disputed by the accused, the trial is accusatorial and the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty and is under no obligation to assist. • Minimising the risk of wrongful convictions. The criminal trial traditionally has been seen to reflect the view that it is in the interest of the community that the risk of conviction of the innocent be minimised even if this may result in the acquittal from time to time of the guilty. • Definition of central question. The central question in a criminal trial is whether the Crown has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of the criminal trial is not “to find out if the accused is guilty”. The primary and specific object of the system is to be able to say with confidence: that if there is a verdict of guilty there can be no doubt that the accused did what was charged with the requisite mens rea. • Recognition of rights of the individual. The convictions of “guilty” persons are not to be pursued and obtained at virtually any cost. The conviction of the guilty is important … but … accused persons are entitled to the benefits of certain rights and protections as a matter of recognition of their personal dignity and integrity, and also, on a far broader scale, as a measure of the overall fairness of the society to the individuals within it.

17. The ALRC considered (ALRC 38, para 35) that this public interest derived from a variety of factors, including the seriousness of the matters involved, the fallibility of any system dependent on human perception and memory, and the imbalance of resources that generally exists in favour of the prosecution. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

21

[EA.Intro.270]

Introduction

• Assisting adversary contest. It is also important to arm an accused person with some protections to give credibility, if not substance, to the idea of the adversary system as a genuine contest.

Notwithstanding the argument sometimes advanced that the rules of evidence developed largely to keep from juries evidence which may be misused or misestimated by them, the ALRC was generally unwilling to draw any significant distinction between jury trials and trials with a judge sitting alone. It concluded that, on the available evidence, it should not be assumed that there is necessarily such a difference between the abilities of judicial officers and jurors that different rules of evidence should be applied to them.

[EA.Intro.270]

The significance of pre-existing law

In Dupas v The Queen (2012) 40 VR 182; 218 A Crim R 507; [2012] VSCA 328 the Victorian Court of Appeal considered the operation of s 137 of the Act and observed at [164]: It is presumed that a statute is not intended (in the absence of express words) to alter common law doctrines. A strict reading and careful scrutiny of the language of the Act is therefore necessary, in order to determine whether it was the will of the legislature to remove or encroach upon those doctrines. However, care must be taken with this passage. The authorities relied upon to support it were largely concerned with legislative infringement of “fundamental” or “basic” common law rights and freedoms and it would be too broad to suggest that “common law doctrine” extends to any aspect of the common law rules of evidence. Given that the Act constitutes a major reform of the law of evidence, not a mere restatement in statutory form of common law and earlier statutory rules of evidence, care must be taken in interpreting its provisions in the context of pre-existing law. In Towney v Minister for Land & Water Conservation (NSW) (1997) 76 FCR 401 Sackville J in the Federal Court observed: The task of [a] Court is to apply the statutory language used by Parliament, and not to substitute a different test merely because it reflects the pre-existing law.

As Gleeson CJ and Hayne J have pointed out in Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 at [10] (see also [38]–[40] and [66]), a High Court decision on evidence of “complaint” in sexual offence prosecutions: It is the language of the statute which now determines the manner in which evidence of the kind presently in question is to be treated.

In relation to that particular language, the High Court rejected an argument that its meaning and effect should be determined in the light of, and in conformity with, the pre-existing common law. Similarly, in Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588, French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ (Heydon J dissenting) disregarded common law authority on the existence of a “basis rule” relating to the admissibility of opinion evidence, observing at [37] that “one basic proposition” should be “at the forefront of consideration”: The admissibility of opinion evidence is to be determined by application of the requirements of the Evidence Act rather than by any attempt to parse and analyse particular statements in decided cases divorced from the context in which those statements were made. 22

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.270]

More recently, and subsequent to the judgment of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Dupas, the High Court emphasised again that “the statute’s language is the primary source, not the pre-existing common law” (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ in IMM v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 529; [2016] HCA 14 at [35]). Indeed, the holding of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Dupas (that judicial assessment of “probative value” for the purposes of s 137 permitted an assessment of the “reliability” of evidence) was held to derive from a view of the common law but not to have any foundation “in textual considerations of the Evidence Act” (at [54]). Of course, in particular contexts the position before enactment of the Act may provide assistance in interpreting the Act. A good example of this is the majority judgment of the High Court in Cornwell v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 260. In interpreting s 128(8) of the Act (as it existed prior to the amendments following on ALRC 102), Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Heydon and Crennan JJ emphasised that the interpretation advanced by the accused would involve a radical change to “the long established and widespread statutory regime” that existed prior to the Act. They stated (at [72]): [T]he Commission was normally careful to indicate when it thought that its proposals would change the law significantly and, when it did so, it habitually strove to give very full justifications for making changes of that kind. The likelihood of this practice being followed would have been extremely high in relation to any intention to change the long established and widespread statutory regime to be found in the equivalents to s 1(e) of the 1898 Act, which itself had a long and controversial background of which the Commission is likely to have been aware. If the accused’s construction of s 128(8) were sound, its substitution for any provision equivalent to s 1(e) would have changed the law significantly. The absence of any justificatory material of this kind in the ALRC Reports – or in the Report of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in 1988, or in the Second Reading Speeches – tells powerfully against the accused’s construction.

Similarly, in interpreting s 128(7), the majority judgment gave considerable significance to the “traditional” position. Chief Justice Gleeson, Gummow, Heydon and Crennan JJ stated at [88]: [E]vidence which traditionally the parties have been at liberty to tender [in a retrial] is evidence of admissions made at the first trial. To construe a statutory provision as negating that traditional possibility would require the identification of clear words to that effect. There are no clear words to that effect in s 128(7).

Given that there was “nothing in ALRC 26, ALRC 38 or NSWLRC 56 which would support” a conclusion that it was intended to overturn the traditional position, it was concluded that it had not been. Nevertheless, as McHugh J pointed out in Papakosmas (at [88]): The Act has made substantial changes to the law of evidence. Notwithstanding s 9, reference to pre-existing common law concepts will often be unhelpful.

As Barr and Hall JJ observed in Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2006) 205 FLR 217; 165 A Crim R 151; [2006] NSWCCA 373 at [289]: The Evidence Act reveals a tendency to relax restrictive rules, no doubt based on the proposition that juries (and judges) are better able to assess the weight which should be given to evidence, than was assumed in the past to be the case. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

23

[EA.Intro.300]

Introduction

Further, the discretions to exclude evidence in Pt 3.10 must not be used to subvert the intention of the legislature.18 McHugh J explained: Sections 135, 136 and 137 contain powers which are to be applied on a case by case basis because of considerations peculiar to the evidence in the particular case. It may be proper for appellate courts to develop guidelines for exercising the powers conferred by these sections so that certain classes of evidence are usually excluded or limited. But those sections confer no authority to emasculate provisions in the Act to make them conform with common law notions of relevance or admissibility.19

[EA.Intro.300]

The significance of authority in other jurisdictions

Authority on the construction of identical (or very similar) provisions in other jurisdictions should be regarded as very persuasive and, unless plainly wrong, should be followed.20 However, clearly enough, this approach would not be applicable where there are conflicting approaches between intermediate appellate authorities in different jurisdictions (see, for example, the commentary on s 137). Further, particular care should be taken in respect of authorities which interpreted provisions in other jurisdictions that were subsequently amended following on ALRC 102 and accordingly were not, at the relevant time, uniform with the comparable provision under consideration.

[EA.Intro.330]

Current issues arising under uniform evidence law

Notwithstanding the significant amendments made following ALRC 102, many important issues arising under the uniform evidence law remain. A few may be mentioned: • Evidence “in narrative form”. The practicality of a witness being permitted to give evidence in narrative form remains questionable, except where the witness is an expert witness (see [EA.29.90]). • Refreshing memory of a witness. The availability in UEL jurisdictions of the common law procedure whereby a witness is permitted to stop testifying and attempt to refresh his or her memory from a previous statement (that was not made when the events recounted were “fresh in his or her memory”), before continuing to testify without the benefit of the statement, is unresolved (see [EA.32.360]). • Unfavourable witnesses. Questions remain regarding the appropriateness of permitting the Crown to call a witness expected to give unfavourable evidence (which the Crown regards as unreliable) in order to have 18. See Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 at [10], [38]–[40], [66], [96]–[97]) 19. Papakosmas at [97]. See also DPP v BB [2010] VSCA 211 at [21]. 20. Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485 at 492. See also Macquarie Bank Ltd v Fociri Pty Ltd (1992) 27 NSWLR 203 at 217; R v JS (2007) 175 A Crim R 108 at [87]; Melville Homes Pty Ltd v Prime Ceramics Services Pty Ltd [1991] 2 VR 211 at 213; Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 505 at 510; Dupas v The Queen (2012) 40 VR 182; 218 A Crim R 507; [2012] VSCA 328 at [222]–[228]; R v XY (2013) 84 NSWLR 363; 231 A Crim R 474; [2013] NSWCCA 121 at [23]–[40]. In R v Darmody [2010] VSCA 41 the proper approach was articulated slightly differently at [26] as a trial judge being bound to follow the decision of an intermediate appellate court in another jurisdiction where “there is no reason to doubt the reasoning there applied”.

24

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

















• •

[EA.Intro.330]

admitted a favourable previous representation by that witness (see [EA.38.30]–[EA.38.270]). The way in which s 38, the (amended) credibility provisions in Pt 3.7, the leave requirement in s 192 and the “discretion” in s 137 should interact is yet to be finally resolved. Circumstantial evidence and the requirement of relevance. The question arises whether circumstantial evidence should be regarded as “not relevant”, and thus inadmissible, if the tribunal of fact could not rationally regard the inference sought to be drawn to a fact in issue as more probable than other available inferences (see [EA.55.330]). Authentication and the requirement of relevance. The application of the provisional relevance provision (s 57) to the question of authentication of documents and things remains controversial (see [EA.57.120]). Failure of Crown to call a particular witness. There is authority, which may be doubted, that a Jones v Dunkel direction should never be given against the Crown (see [EA.55.180]). Hearsay exceptions. The scope of the “shortly after the asserted fact occurred” (see [EA.65.150]) and the fresh in the memory (see [EA.66.180]) first-hand hearsay exception in criminal proceedings remains uncertain. Lay opinion evidence. The practical application of the requirement that the evidence “is necessary to obtain an adequate account or understanding of the witness’s perception of the matter or event” continues to cause difficulty (see [EA.78.60]). Expert opinion evidence. A number of important issues arise. Is expert opinion only admissible where the opinion (or, at least, the field of knowledge from where it comes) is shown to be reliable (see [EA.79.120]–[EA.79.180])? If there is such a requirement, what precisely has to be established for scientific evidence to be regarded as reliable? To what extent is the summary of the law provided by Heydon JA, as he then was, in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 good law in UEL jurisdictions (see [EA.79.240])? Admissions. Is there an obligation on the party seeking exclusion of an admission under s 84 to establish that there was “violent” or similar conduct (or the threat of such conduct) (see [EA.84.120])? Is the test in s 85 which requires determining whether it is “unlikely that the truth of the admission was adversely affected” subjective or objective (see [EA.85.210])? How does that test apply to conduct relied upon to infer “consciousness of guilt”? How does the UEL respond to law enforcement trickery used to obtain admissions (see [EA.90.60] – [EA.90.150])? Wholly exculpatory previous representations by a criminal defendant. Are such statements generally admissible when adduced by the defence (see [EA.81.270])? Tendency and coincidence evidence. What are the precise parameters of the test of admissibility in s 101 (see [EA.101.180])? Identification evidence. When may it be concluded that a suspect has “refused to take part in an identification parade” so that picture identification may be utilised (see [EA.115.180])?

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

25

[EA.Intro.330]

Introduction

• Client legal privilege. What are the precise parameters of the “dominant purpose” test (see [EA.118.390])? What precisely does it mean to act “in a way that is inconsistent with the client or party objecting to the adducing” of evidence (see [EA.122.120])? • Professional confidential relationship privilege. As noted at [EA.Intro.210], the NSW Act extends the “privilege” (better understood as a “judicial discretion”) to a confidential communication made to a person “acting in a professional capacity” while the Victorian Act contains no such “privilege” and the Commonwealth Act limits it to communications to journalists (see [EA.Ch.3.Pt.3.10.Div.1A.30]–[EA.126E.30]). Given the policy considerations supporting the NSW provision, should it be adopted uniformly? • Privilege in respect of self-incrimination. When may it be said that a witness “objects” to giving evidence (see [EA.128.120])? • Privilege in preliminary court proceedings. This provision in the NSW Act and the Victorian Act extends the application of the privileges in Pt 3.10 (other than the provisions of s 123 and s 128) to pre-trial stages of civil and criminal proceedings (“a process or order of a court that requires the disclosure of information or a document”). The Commonwealth provision is much more limited (see [EA.131A.30]–[EA.131A.150]). Should it be amended to reflect the approach adopted in NSW and Victoria? In respect of the NSW provision, it is uncertain whether the privileges in Pt 3.10 apply in respect of the execution of search warrants or to the issue of “inspection” of documents produced to a court (see [EA.131A.90]). • Discretion to exclude improperly or unlawfully obtained evidence. Conceptual difficulties arise where the evidence in question (sought to be excluded under s 138) is of an offence which is said to have been “caused” by the impugned conduct (see [EA.138.150]). • Standard of proof in civil proceedings. Does the common law Briginshaw test apply under s 140 (see [EA.140.60])? In particular, how is the gravity of the matters alleged to be taken into account? Is “actual persuasion” of the occurrence or existence of the fact(s) in issue required under this provision? • Standard of proof in criminal proceedings. When is an intermediate circumstantial fact “indispensable” to proof of guilt (see [EA.141.120])? • Unreliable evidence. What are “good reasons” for not giving a jury warning (see [EA.165.240])? • Failure to object. The significance of an absence of objection to the admission of (arguably) “inadmissible” evidence is, particularly in criminal proceedings, uncertain (see [EA.Intro.350], [EA.190.60]). • Appellate review. The precise nature of appellate review of determinations made under the UEL is, in general, a matter of some controversy (see [EA.55.600], [EA.97.480], [EA.98.450], [EA.101.450], [EA.130.420], [EA.135.300], [EA.137.210], [EA.138.720]). 26

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.340]

[EA.Intro.340]

Joint trials

A recurring issue in respect of the UEL is the application of the rules in joint trials, where there are multiple parties. When a joint criminal trial is held, involving multiple defendants, in legal theory there is not one trial but several. In a joint trial involving two defendants (D1 and D2), for example, evidence admitted in the trial against D1 may not be admissible for or against D2, and in that situation must be disregarded in the trial of D2 (and if that is impossible, the trials should be separated).21 For example, where evidence is admitted of an admission by D1 it will not necessarily be an “admission” in the trial of D2, since an “admission” is defined to be a previous representation “made by a person who is or becomes a party to a proceeding”. Since D1 is not a party in the trial of D2, the evidence of a previous representation by D1 is not an admission in the trial of D2 unless s 87 operates to permit it being treated as an admission by D2. Conversely, testimony by D1 will, if relevant to the trial of D2, be admissible in the trial of D2 (on the assumption that no provision of the Act otherwise provides). To give another example, evidence that D2, charged with murder, has a history of engaging in violent conduct may not be admissible against D2 (on the basis that it is “tendency evidence” rendered inadmissible by ss 97 or 101) but the same evidence may be relevant and admissible in support of a defence of duress advanced by D1, charged with assisting D2 – in a joint trial, the evidence must be disregarded in the trial of D2 (and if that is impossible, the trials should be separated).22 When a criminal trial is held of multiple charges against one defendant, again, in legal theory, there is not one trial but several. Evidence admissible in respect of the trial of one charge may not be admissible in the trial of another. Whether or not it will be depends on the application of the provisions of this Act. In a jury trial, where evidence is admissible in respect of one charge but not another, careful directions to this effect would be necessary.23 It might have been thought that these principles would apply equally to civil proceedings. However, there is NSW authority to the contrary. Austin J in Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2004) 51 ACSR 363; [2004] NSWSC 1062 stated at [24] “that where evidence is admitted in a proceeding in which there are several defendants, the evidence is admissible in the proceeding against all defendants, subject only to any restricting order that may be made under s 136”. Austin J stated the position rather differently, and arguably more accurately at [22], when he observed that the evidence is “available to be used for any purpose, unless one of the exclusionary rules of the Act … applies, or the court makes use of its statutory discretions to exclude admissible evidence or limit its use”. This latter passage was noted with apparent approval by Beazley JA (Young JA agreeing) in the NSW Court of Appeal: Johnstone v New South Wales (2010) 202 A Crim R 422; [2010] NSWCA 70 at [102]. However, more recently, in Eire Contractors Pty Ltd v O’Brien [2012] NSWCA 400, an appeal from proceedings involving allegations of negligence 21. R v Rahme [2001] NSWCCA 414. 22. See, under the common law, Russell v Western Australia (2011) 214 A Crim R 326; [2011] WASCA 246. 23. BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; 95 A Crim R 400; [1997] HCA 47; KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; 118 A Crim R 262; [2001] HCA 11. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

27

[EA.Intro.350]

Introduction

brought by a plaintiff against two defendant companies, Barrett JA (McColl JA and Preston CJ of LEC agreeing) noted the analysis of Austin J in Rich and stated at [109]: The present case was one of a “single proceeding” with the plaintiff suing both [defendants]. Evidence admissible and admitted “in” that proceeding was therefore available for use generally in the proceeding subject to any order under s 136 limiting the use to which it could be put.

It has to be said that, given the analysis in respect of criminal proceedings, this proposition should be regarded as highly doubtful, at least in respect of non-testimonial evidence. Of course, as a practical matter, the various rules of admissibility may apply in the same way with respect to the two defendants (as appears to have been the position in Eire Contractors Pty Ltd v O’Brien). However, the example of the differential application of the admissions exception to the hearsay rule clearly demonstrates that they may not and this important point of principle should not be forgotten. This point was acknowledged by Reeves J of the Federal Court in Richards v Macquarie Bank Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1523 (decided prior to Eire Contractors Pty Ltd v O’Brien) when his Honour noted at [40] that Austin J had not referred to the provisions in this Act applying to evidence of admissions and concluded (at [83]) that it was clear that an admission made by one defendant to civil proceedings would not necessarily be admissible against another party to the proceedings.

[EA.Intro.350]

Absence of objection

Another recurring issue in relation to the UEL, particularly in respect of the application of the admissibility rules in Ch 3, is whether the provisions apply in the absence of objection being taken by a party to the proceeding. On the face of it, they do. There is no explicit precondition to the operation of these provisions that evidence is not admissible “if objection is taken by a party”. However, Spigelman CJ stated in Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 at [149]: In the ordinary course, the words “not admissible” in the Evidence Act, including in the opinion rule found in s 70 to which s 79 is an exception, means “not admissible over objection”, in accordance with the practice of the courts of which the Parliament was aware when it passed the Evidence Act.

Spigelman CJ had earlier expressed the same view in respect of a provision of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (which was cognate with, and commenced operation at the same time as, the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)) which rendered certain evidence “not admissible”.24 That approach in respect of what is now s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) has been followed.25 Equally, NSW courts have generally followed this approach with respect to the UEL.26 This approach should be regarded as erroneous, at least in relation to the UEL. It adds words to the UEL and none of the ordinary circumstances which might justify this are present. There is no basis to conclude that the omission of the 24. R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258 per Spigelman CJ (at [5]), Greg James J (at [11]). 25. See Gonzales v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 321 at [26]. 26. R v Lyberopoulos [2002] NSWCCA 280 at [41]; Lazaris v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 163 at [97]; WC v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 52 at [20].

28

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.350]

words was a drafting error and a natural reading of the statute does not produce unusual or unworkable consequences. Nothing in the ALRC Reports suggests that the words were left out inadvertently. The approach also fails to take into account the existence of s 190, which deals in a comprehensive manner with the issue of “waiver of rules of evidence”. Absence of objection has always been understood as a form of “waiver” of the rules of evidence. Section 190 permits a court to “dispense with the application” of various provisions in the Act, including many of the provisions in Ch 3, so long as a number of conditions are satisfied. It is inconsistent with the clear intention behind that provision to hold that the provisions in the Act, which enact that certain categories of evidence are “not admissible”, have no application in the absence of objection by a party. The argument advanced by Spigelman CJ, that “the Parliament was aware when it passed” the UEL that the adversarial practice of the courts usually required objection be taken to evidence, needs to be approached with caution. It is comparable to the argument sometimes advanced that the UEL should be presumed not to alter common law doctrines, discussed at [EA.Intro.270]. In any event, the fact that the courts sometimes treat evidence that was not the subject of objection as “inadmissible” demonstrates a flaw in the argument. It is true that, in civil proceedings, the accepted view is that it is not the role of the court to raise questions of admissibility, including any which turn on relevance.27 Where evidence is admitted which the court regards as not relevant under s 55, the court will give the evidence no weight.28 Although in a situation where evidence is admissible for one use but not admissible for another use, absence of objection will usually be understood to apply to the first use, so that the court should not use the evidence in the second impermissible way29, a civil court will not exclude “inadmissible” evidence that was not the subject of objection. However, in criminal proceedings, the trial judge’s overriding obligation to ensure a fair trial according to law would extend to requiring the trial judge on his or her own motion to exclude inadmissible evidence, the effect of which would deny a fair trial.30 As the Victorian Court of Appeal stated in Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121 at [221]: When irrelevant or inadmissible evidence emerges during the examination of a witness, a trial judge may have to intervene, unless it becomes plain that the course is one agreed to by the parties, and that it will not create the risk of an unfair trial. There will be other circumstances in which the trial judge, in the interests of ensuring a fair trial, will be obliged to question the admissibility of evidence although no objection is taken.

27. Lindgren J in Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (No 2) (2003) 130 FCR 424; [2003] FCA 893 at [13]. 28. Lindgren J in Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (No 2) (2003) 130 FCR 424; [2003] FCA 893 at [13]. In Lym International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303, Campbell JA observed at [103] that, even where no objection has been taken, “it can at least be said that it would be improper for a judge to use, in assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, evidence that in truth does not rationally affect that probability”. 29. Compare Lym International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303, Campbell JA at [103]. 30. See R v Slack (2003) 139 A Crim R 314; [2003] NSWCCA 93 at [37]. Similarly, the prevailing view is that, at least where the danger of unfair prejudice is manifest, an obligation to exclude the evidence under s 137 may arise in accordance with the trial judge’s overriding obligation to ensure a fair trial according to law: R v Le [2002] NSWCCA 186; (2002) 130 A Crim R 44 at [47]; Poniris v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 100 at [49]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

29

[EA.Intro.350]

Introduction

Further, appeal courts will on occasion regard evidence as “inadmissible” notwithstanding the absence of objection. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (Mason P, Sperling and Bergin JJ) observed in R v Chai [2002] NSWCCA 512 at [41] that it “has long been held that failure by a trial judge to allow inadmissible evidence may give rise to a miscarriage of justice notwithstanding the absence of objection: R v Ellis [1910] 2 KB 747; Stirland v Director of Public Prosecutions [1944] AC 327.” This proposition implicitly recognises that evidence may be regarded as “not admissible” notwithstanding the absence of objection and an appeal may succeed notwithstanding that absence. Interestingly, in Jackson v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 411, Spigelman CJ appears to have accepted the correctness of the approach taken in Chai given that he held that an absence of objection at trial did not necessarily render the evidence in question admissible although it did, in the particular circumstances, justify a refusal to grant leave to appeal to challenge the admission of the evidence. Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), for example, expressly requires leave of the appeal court to advance a ground of appeal where objection was not taken at trial. It may be concluded that there was no “miscarriage of justice” if counsel saw no reason to make objection (or objection on a particular basis later advanced on appeal).31 The point is that the evidence may regarded as inadmissible (contrary to the view that the words “not admissible”, where they appear in the UEL, mean “not admissible over objection”) but the appeal is nonetheless dismissed. In 2014, the Victorian Court of Appeal in Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121, after referring to NSW authority and the criticism above (which was said at [199] to appear “to have some force”), observed at [200] that, while no concluded view was taken and the decisions of another intermediate appellate court on the identical provision in uniform legislation “must be given great weight … in the absence of full and considered argument by this court, we would be reluctant to construe the term ‘is not admissible’ in s 97 (and other provisions of the UEL to the same effect) as meaning that the evidence was admissible in the absence of objection”. However, in 2016, in Perish v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 89 the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, after referring to the different views on the question, concluded at [270]: [W]e are not satisfied that the construction of the words “not admissible”, in the cases to which we have referred above, is plainly wrong. Indeed, the better view is that it is correct.

With respect to the significance of s 190, it was observed at [267] that “[i]f as a matter of construction s 59 means inadmissible over objection, failing to object does not constitute any waiver of the provision within the meaning of s 190”. However that observation, while strictly correct, fails to acknowledge that s 190 was intended to deal in a comprehensive manner with the issue of waiver. It was argued at [268] that the different wording in some provisions that provide that “evidence is not to be adduced” (eg s 118) “does lend support for the view that ‘admissible’ means ‘admissible over objection’”. However, that is far from apparent – the different wording reveals only an intention that the applicable provisions dealing with privilege should have an application beyond the question 31. See Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121 at [201]–[221].

30

Uniform Evidence Law

Introduction

[EA.Intro.360]

of “admissibility” to the actual production of evidence in court. Support was found at [270] in the observation of Gleeson CJ and Hayne J in Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40 at [20] that “in an adversarial context … [i]t is the parties, and their counsel, who … choose the evidence that they will lead, and to which they will take objection”. However, in that case the High Court held that the judicial obligation to give a warning about identification evidence in s 116 only arises where the reliability of the identification evidence is “disputed”. There is a difference between an identification not being disputed and no request being made for a warning. The High Court did not hold that a warning under s 116 need not be given unless requested. The observations of Gleeson CJ and Hayne J were made in the context of demonstrating that a warning about evidence should not be given if it was not disputed. The judgment is certainly not authority for a proposition that the apparently mandatory provisions of the uniform evidence legislation should be read as if the words “if objection is taken” qualify them. Finally, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Perish relied at [272] on the proposition that a trial judge may be required “on his or her own motion to exclude inadmissible evidence” in order to ensure a fair trial, without appreciating that this proposition actually contradicts the view that the provisions of the UEL only render evidence “not admissible” if objection is made by a party. It appears likely that the High Court will have to resolve this issue in due course. Notwithstanding the force of the arguments against reading in the words “over objection” after the words “not admissible”, the 4:3 majority in IMM v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 529; [2016] HCA 14 reading the words “if it were accepted” into the definition of “probative value” might suggest that the NSW approach will again prevail.

[EA.Intro.360]

Overview

Opinions differ on the merits of the uniform evidence law. It certainly has had its share of critics. On a theoretical level, it can be argued that the law in statutory form tends to become more rigid and inflexible, lacking the dynamics of the common law. Courts may have difficulty in developing rules of evidence in response to new types of evidence. The legislation will require more case law to clarify the uncertainties it creates. Amendment is often a difficult process. Injustice may be caused. On a more specific level, particular provisions attract criticism, whether for the principles on which they are based or for the difficulties of interpretation and application they create. Yet, for many, this legislation was welcome. It made the rules of evidence easier to find. It may well have made them easier to understand, and to inter-relate. It certainly simplified many of the rules. It facilitated the admission of evidence derived from modern information storing media and copying technologies. It introduced greater flexibility in several areas of evidence law. It hopefully provided a rational and principled system of trial procedure, one aimed at procedural justice. The substantial amendments following on ALRC 102 show that the Act can be improved over time. To the extent that other jurisdictions follow the lead of New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory in enacting parallel legislation, citizens across this country will experience a substantially uniform system of trial procedure. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

31

[EA.Intro.360]

Introduction

Of course, this legislation does not solve all the problems with evidence. Deciding whether evidence is “relevant” to a proceeding, for example, remains a task for which the law can only provide limited assistance. Some “rules” can only be expressed in the most general language, articulating a principle rather than a precise test. While this provides flexibility, the price is uncertainty of result. In many areas, the Act accords considerable “discretion” to trial judges, both expressly and implicitly. However, it attempts to articulate the applicable principles and provide guidance in the exercise of such discretion. Ultimately, it relies on the good sense of judges and magistrates to apply the Act in a way consistent with the policy framework around which the Act is constructed.

32

Uniform Evidence Law

EVIDENCE ACT • • • • •

Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence

Act 1995 (Cth) [No 2 of 1995] Act 1995 (NSW) [No 25 of 1995] Act 2008 (Vic) [No 47 of 2008] Act 2011 (ACT) [No 12 of 2011] (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT)

Table of Provisions Editor’s note * indicates that the provision appears only in the Commonwealth Act. † indicates that the provision appears only in the NSW Act. ‡ indicates that the provision appears only in the Victorian Act. ◊ indicates that the provision appears only in the ACT Act. ♠ indicates that the provision appears only in the NT Act.

CHAPTER 1 - PRELIMINARY / PRELIMINARY MATTERS♠ Introductory note

Part 1.1 - Formal matters 1 2 2A 3 3A 3B

Short title*♠ / Name of Act†◊ / Purpose‡............................................................43 Commencement*† ‡♠......................................................................................... 44 Object of Act♠ ................................................................................................... 45 Definitions............................................................................................................ 45 Notes‡ / Numbering◊...........................................................................................47 Notes◊..................................................................................................................47

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act / Application of Act♠ 4 5 6 7 8 8A 9 10 11

Courts and proceedings to which Act applies ................................................... 48 Extended application of certain provisions ........................................................ 58 Territories ........................................................................................................... 60 Act binds Crown ................................................................................................ 60 Operation of other Acts etc* / Operation of other Acts†◊ / Operation of Acts‡♠ .......................................................................................... 61 Application of the Criminal Code*♠ / Offences against Act–application of Criminal Code etc◊ ............................................................................................ 66 Effect of Act on other laws* / Application of common law and equity ............... 67 Parliamentary privilege preserved ..................................................................... 71 General powers of a court ................................................................................. 72

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

33

Evidence Act

CHAPTER 2 - ADDUCING EVIDENCE / GIVING AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE◊ Introductory note*†♠ / Note‡*◊

Part 2.1 - Witnesses Division 1 / Division 2.1.1◊ - Competence and compellability of witnesses 12 Competence and compellability...........................................................................80 13 Competence: lack of capacity............................................................................. 81 14 Compellability: reduced capacity......................................................................... 95 15 Compellability: Sovereign and others..................................................................97 16 Competence and compellability: judges and jurors............................................ 99 17 Competence and compellability: defendants in criminal proceedings / Competence and compellability–accused in criminal proceedings‡................. 100 18 Compellability of spouses and others in criminal proceedings generally......... 104 19 Compellability of spouses and others in certain criminal proceedings†‡◊♠..... 112 20 Comment on failure to give evidence................................................................ 114 Division 2♠ / Division 2.1.2 - Oaths♠ / Oaths and affirmations 21 Sworn evidence of witnesses to be on oath or affirmation / Evidence of witnesses to be on oath♠..................................................................................131 22 Interpreters to act on oath or affirmation / Interpreters to act on oath♠...........134 23 Choice of oath or affirmation ........................................................................... 136 24 Requirements for oaths..................................................................................... 138 24A Alternative oath†‡◊ .......................................................................................... 139 25 Rights to make unsworn statements unaffected [Repealed]*♠........................ 140 Division 3 - General rules about giving evidence / Division 2.1.3 General rules about giving evidence◊ 26 Court’s control over questioning of witnesses*†◊ / Court’s control over questioning of witness‡♠...................................................................................141 27 Parties may question witnesses........................................................................ 148 28 Order of examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination.............151 29 Manner and form of questioning witnesses and their responses..................... 153 30 Interpreters / Interpreter♠ ................................................................................ 159 31 Witnesses who cannot hear adequately or speak adequately* / Deaf and mute witnesses.................................................................................................. 161 32 Attempts to revive memory in court.................................................................. 163 33 Evidence given by police officers...................................................................... 171 34 Attempts to revive memory out of court............................................................ 174 35 Effect of calling for production of documents.................................................... 176 36 Person may be examined without subpoena or other process........................ 178 Division 4 - Examination in chief and re-examination / Division 2.1.4 Examination-in-chief and re examination◊ 37 Leading questions..............................................................................................181 38 Unfavourable witnesses.....................................................................................188 39 Limits on re-examination................................................................................... 204 Division 5 / Division 2.1.5◊ - Cross-examination 40 Witness called in error.......................................................................................209 41 Improper questions............................................................................................ 210 42 Leading questions..............................................................................................225 43 Prior inconsistent statements of witnesses....................................................... 229 44 Previous representations of other persons / Previous representations of other people◊.................................................................................................234 45 Production of documents...................................................................................240 46 Leave to recall witnesses.................................................................................. 244

34

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Provisions

Part 2.2 - Documents 47 48 49 50 51

Definitions / Definitions–pt 2.2◊......................................................................... 260 Proof of contents of documents........................................................................ 262 Documents in foreign countries.........................................................................280 Proof of voluminous or complex documents..................................................... 282 Original document rule abolished......................................................................286

Part 2.3 - Other evidence 52 53 54

Adducing of other evidence not affected / Presenting of other evidence not affected◊...................................................................................................... 288 Views................................................................................................................. 290 Views to be evidence........................................................................................ 296

CHAPTER 3 - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Introductory note / Note◊

Part 3.1 - Relevance 55 56 57 58

Relevant evidence............................................................................................. 302 Relevant evidence to be admissible..................................................................339 Provisional relevance.........................................................................................344 Inferences as to relevance................................................................................ 351

Part 3.2 - Hearsay Division 1 / Division 3.2.1◊ - The hearsay rule 59 The hearsay rule–exclusion of hearsay evidence............................................. 357 60 Exception: evidence relevant for a non-hearsay purpose.................................370 61 Exceptions to the hearsay rule dependent on competency*†◊ / Exceptions to the hearsay rule dependant on competency‡♠............................................ 377 Division 2 / Division 3.2.2◊ - First-hand hearsay 62 Restriction to “first-hand” hearsay..................................................................... 382 63 Exception: civil proceedings if maker not available.......................................... 387 64 Exception: civil proceedings if maker available.................................................391 65 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker not available.................................... 399 66 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker available.......................................... 423 66A Exception: contemporaneous statements about a person’s health etc............ 439 67 Notice to be given..............................................................................................442 68 Objections to tender of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings if maker available...............................................................................................448 Division 3 / Division 3.2.3◊ - Other exceptions to the hearsay rule 69 Exception: business records..............................................................................452 70 Exception: contents of tags, labels and writing.................................................473 71 Exception: electronic communications.............................................................. 476 72 Exception: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs..............................................................................................................480 73 Exception: reputation as to relationships and age............................................ 482 74 Exception: reputation of public or general rights...............................................485 75 Exception: interlocutory proceedings.................................................................487

Part 3.3 - Opinion 76 77 78 78A 79 80

The opinion rule.................................................................................................494 Exception: evidence relevant otherwise than as opinion evidence.................. 505 Exception: lay opinions......................................................................................507 Exception: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs...................................................................................................... 520 Exception: opinions based on specialised knowledge...................................... 522 Ultimate issue and common knowledge rules abolished.................................. 562

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

35

Evidence Act

Part 3.4 - Admissions 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 89A 90

Hearsay and opinion rules: exception for admissions and related representations.................................................................................................. 569 Exclusion of evidence of admissions that is not first-hand............................... 585 Exclusion of evidence of admissions as against third parties.......................... 586 Exclusion of admissions influenced by violence and certain other conduct..... 590 Criminal proceedings: reliability of admissions by defendants / Criminal proceedings–reliability of admissions by accused‡.......................................... 597 Exclusion of records of oral questioning............................................................611 Admissions made with authority........................................................................615 Proof of admissions........................................................................................... 622 Evidence of silence / Evidence of silence generally†....................................... 624 Evidence of silence in criminal proceedings for serious indictable offences† ......................................................................................................... 629 Discretion to exclude admissions...................................................................... 634

Part 3.5 - Evidence of judgments and convictions 91 92 93

Exclusion of evidence of judgments and convictions........................................649 Exceptions......................................................................................................... 651 Savings.............................................................................................................. 655

Part 3.6 - Tendency and coincidence 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Application......................................................................................................... 658 Use of evidence for other purposes.................................................................. 661 Failure to act......................................................................................................663 The tendency rule..............................................................................................664 The coincidence rule......................................................................................... 689 Requirements for notices...................................................................................710 Court may dispense with notice requirements.................................................. 711 Further restrictions on tendency evidence and coincidence evidence adduced by prosecution.................................................................................... 715

Part 3.7 - Credibility Division 1 / Division 3.7.1◊ - Credibility evidence 101A Credibility evidence............................................................................................770 Division 2 / Division 3.7.2◊ - Credibility of witnesses 102 The credibility rule............................................................................................. 781 103 Exception: cross-examination as to credibility.................................................. 784 104 Further protections: cross-examination of accused* / Further protections: cross-examination as to credibility.................................................................... 792 105 Further protections: defendants making unsworn statements [Repealed]*........................................................................................................ 801 106 Exception: rebutting denials by other evidence................................................ 802 107 Exception: application of certain provisions to makers of representations [Repealed]*†...................................................................................................... 813 108 Exception: re-establishing credibility................................................................. 813 Division 3 / Division 3.7.3◊ - Credibility of persons who are not witnesses 108A Admissibility of evidence of credibility of person who has made a previous representation.................................................................................................... 823 108B Further protections: previous representations of an accused who is not a witness............................................................................................................827 Division 4 / Division 3.7.4◊ - Persons with specialised knowledge 108C Exception: evidence of persons with specialised knowledge........................... 833

36

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Provisions

Part 3.8 - Character 109 110 111 112

Application / Application–pt 3.8◊........................................................................841 Evidence about character of accused persons*†♠ / Evidence about character of an accused‡ / Evidence about character of accused people◊..... 842 Evidence about character of co-accused.......................................................... 855 Leave required to cross-examine about character of accused or co-accused.................................................................................................... 857

Part 3.9 - Identification evidence 113 114 115 116

Application of Part / Application–pt 3.9◊............................................................863 Exclusion of visual identification evidence........................................................ 864 Exclusion of evidence of identification by pictures............................................887 Directions to jury................................................................................................902

Part 3.10 - Privileges Division 1 / Division 3.10.1◊ - Client legal privilege 117 Definitions / Definitions–div 3.10.1◊.................................................................. 916 118 Legal advice.......................................................................................................927 119 Litigation.............................................................................................................945 120 Unrepresented parties....................................................................................... 951 121 Loss of client legal privilege: generally............................................................. 953 122 Loss of client legal privilege: consent and related matters............................... 958 123 Loss of client legal privilege: defendants / Loss of client legal privilege–accused‡............................................................................................ 987 124 Loss of client legal privilege: joint clients.......................................................... 990 125 Loss of client legal privilege: misconduct..........................................................994 126 Loss of client legal privilege: related communications and documents.......... 1002 Division 1A† / Division 3.10.1A◊ - Professional confidential relationship privilege†◊ 126A Definitions† / Definitions–div 3.10.1A◊ .......................................................... 1007 126B Exclusion of evidence of protected confidences†◊ ....................................... 1009 126C Loss of professional confidential relationship privilege: consent†◊ ............... 1019 126D Loss of professional confidential relationship privilege: misconduct†◊ ......... 1020 126E Ancillary orders†◊ .......................................................................................... 1021 126F Application of Division† / Application–div 3.10.1A◊ ....................................... 1022 Division 1B - Sexual assault communications privilege† 126G Definitions† .................................................................................................... 1024 126H Exclusion of evidence of protected sexual assault communications† .......... 1024 126I Application of Division† ................................................................................. 1024 Division 1C*†‡ / Division 3.10.1C◊ - Journalist privilege†‡◊ 126J Definitions*†‡ / Definitions–div 3.10.1C◊........................................................ 1025 126K Journalist privilege relating to identity of informant*†‡ /Journalist privilege relating to informant’s identity◊........................................1028 126L Application of Division† / Application–div 3.10.1C◊ ...................................... 1040 Division 2 / Division 3.10.2◊ - Other privileges 127 Religious confessions...................................................................................... 1041 128 Privilege in respect of self-incrimination in other proceedings........................1044 128A Privilege in respect of self-incrimination–exception for certain orders etc......1077 Division 3 / Division 3.10.3◊ - Evidence excluded in the public interest 129 Exclusion of evidence of reasons for judicial etc decisions............................ 1089 130 Exclusion of evidence of matters of state....................................................... 1095 131 Exclusion of evidence of settlement negotiations............................................1112 © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

37

Evidence Act Division 4 / Division 3.10.4◊ - General 131A Extended application of Division 1C* / Application of Part to preliminary proceedings of courts†‡ / Application of div 3.10.4 to preliminary proceedings of courts◊ / Application of Division to preliminary proceedings of courts♠....................................................................................1137 131B Extended application of Division 1C etc to all proceedings for Commonwealth offences*................................................................................ 1147 132 Court to inform of rights to make applications and objections........................ 1148 133 Court may inspect etc documents................................................................... 1149 134 Inadmissibility of evidence that must not be adduced or given / Inadmissibility of evidence that must not be presented or given◊.................. 1151

Part 3.11 - Discretionary and mandatory exclusions 135 136 137 138 139

General discretion to exclude evidence...........................................................1153 General discretion to limit use of evidence..................................................... 1167 Exclusion of prejudicial evidence in criminal proceedings.............................. 1175 Discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence* / Exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence................................... 1201 Cautioning of persons......................................................................................1234

CHAPTER 4 - PROOF Introductory note / Note◊

Part 4.1 - Standard of proof 140 141 142

Civil proceedings: standard of proof................................................................1246 Criminal proceedings: standard of proof......................................................... 1256 Admissibility of evidence: standard of proof....................................................1269

Part 4.2 - Judicial notice 143 144 145

Matters of law.................................................................................................. 1271 Matters of common knowledge....................................................................... 1275 Certain Crown certificates............................................................................... 1282

Part 4.3 - Facilitation of proof Division 1 / Division 4.3.1◊ - General 146 Evidence produced by processes, machines and other devices.................... 1284 147 Documents produced by processes, machines and other devices in the course of business...........................................................................................1287 148 Evidence of certain acts of justices, lawyers and notaries public* /Evidence of certain acts of justices, Australian lawyers and notaries public.......................................................................................... 1292 149 Attestation of documents................................................................................. 1294 150 Seals and signatures....................................................................................... 1295 151 Seals of bodies established under State law*.................................................1301 152 Documents produced from proper custody..................................................... 1301 Division 2 / Division 4.3.2◊ - Matters of official record 153 Gazettes and other official documents............................................................ 1303 154 Documents published by authority of Parliaments etc.................................... 1307 155 Evidence of official records..............................................................................1308 155A Evidence of Commonwealth documents......................................................... 1312 156 Public documents............................................................................................ 1314 157 Public documents relating to court processes................................................ 1317 158 Evidence of certain public documents.............................................................1320 159 Official statistics............................................................................................... 1323

38

Uniform Evidence Law

Table of Provisions Division 3 / Division 4.3.3◊ - Matters relating to post and communications 160 Postal articles.................................................................................................. 1325 161 Electronic communications.............................................................................. 1330 162 Lettergrams and telegrams..............................................................................1334 163 Proof of letters having been sent by Commonwealth agencies..................... 1336

Part 4.4 - Corroboration 164

Corroboration requirements abolished............................................................ 1338

Part 4.5 - Warnings and information 165 165A 165B

Unreliable evidence......................................................................................... 1342 Warnings in relation to children’s evidence.....................................................1398 Delay in prosecution........................................................................................ 1407

Part 4.6 - Ancillary provisions Division 1 / Division 4.6.1◊ - Requests to produce documents or call witnesses 166 Definition of request / Meaning of request–div 4.6.1◊.................................... 1424 167 Requests may be made about certain matters............................................... 1427 168 Time limits for making certain requests...........................................................1431 169 Failure or refusal to comply with requests / Failure to comply with requests◊..................................................................... 1435 Division 2 / Division 4.6.2◊ - Proof of certain matters by affidavits or written statements 170 Evidence relating to certain matters................................................................1444 171 Persons who may give such evidence / People who may give evidence mentioned in s 170◊ ...................................................................................... 1446 172 Evidence based on knowledge, belief or information..................................... 1450 173 Notification of other parties..............................................................................1452 Division 3 / Division 4.6.3◊ - Foreign law 174 Evidence of foreign law................................................................................... 1453 175 Evidence of law reports of foreign countries................................................... 1455 176 Questions of foreign law to be decided by judge............................................1456 Division 4 / Division 4.6.4◊ - Procedures for proving other matters 177 Certificates of expert evidence........................................................................ 1458 178 Convictions, acquittals and other judicial proceedings................................... 1461 179 Proof of identity of convicted persons–affidavits by members of State or Territory police forces / Proof of identity of convicted people–affidavits by members of State or Territory police forces◊.................................................. 1466 180 Proof of identity of convicted persons–affidavits by AFP employees or special members of the Australian Federal Police* / Proof of identity of convicted persons–affidavits by members of Australian Federal Police†‡♠ / Proof of identity of convicted people–affidavits by members of Australian Federal Police◊...............................................................................1469 181 Proof of service of statutory notifications, notices, orders and directions.......1472

CHAPTER 5 - MISCELLANEOUS / MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS♠ 182

183 184 185

Application of certain sections in relation to Commonwealth records, postal articles sent by Commonwealth agencies and certain Commonwealth documents* / Application of certain sections in relation to Commonwealth records............................................................................................................. 1474 Inferences........................................................................................................ 1477 Accused may admit matters and give consents............................................. 1479 Faith and credit to be given to documents properly authenticated*◊ / Full faith and credit to be given to documents properly authenticated †‡♠.......... 1483

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

39

Evidence Act 186 187

188 189 190 191 192 192A 193 194 195 196 197 198

Swearing of affidavits before justices of the peace, notaries public and lawyers*†◊ / Swearing of affidavits‡♠............................................................. 1484 Abolition of the privilege against self-incrimination for bodies corporate* / No privilege against self-incrimination for bodies corporate†‡♠ / No privilege against self-incrimination for bodies corporate◊............................... 1486 Impounding documents................................................................................... 1488 The voir dire..................................................................................................... 1488 Waiver of rules of evidence............................................................................. 1496 Agreements as to facts....................................................................................1502 Leave, permission or direction may be given on terms /Leave, permission or direction may be given on conditions◊........................ 1507 Advance rulings and findings.......................................................................... 1512 Additional powers............................................................................................ 1516 Witnesses failing to attend proceedings†‡◊♠................................................. 1519 Prohibited question not to be published..........................................................1522 Proceedings for offences [Repealed]*♠.......................................................... 1524 Regulations/ Regulation-making power◊......................................................... 1525 Savings, transitional and other provisions† ................................................... 1526

CHAPTER 6 TRANSITIONAL MATTERS FOR EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) ACT 2011♠ (NT ONLY) 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213

Definitions♠..................................................................................................... 1527 Application of this Act on commencement day♠.............................................1527 Application of section 128A♠.......................................................................... 1527 Application of Part 3.10 to disclosure requirements♠.....................................1527 Identifications already carried out♠................................................................. 1528 Documents and evidence produced before commencement day by processes, machines and other devices♠...................................................... 1528 Documents attested and verified before commencement day♠..................... 1528 Matters of official record published before commencement day♠..................1528 Agreed facts♠.................................................................................................. 1529 Application of Act to improperly or illegally obtained evidence♠.................... 1529 Notification provisions♠................................................................................... 1529 Notice of intention to adduce hearsay evidence♠.......................................... 1530 Notice of intention to adduce evidence as to tendency or coincidence♠.......1530 Time limits for making requests♠.................................................................... 1530 Requests under section 173♠ ....................................................................... 1531 Transitional regulations♠................................................................................. 1531

CHAPTER 7 TRANSITIONAL MATTERS FOR EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT ACT 2013♠ (NT ONLY) 214 215

Definitions♠..................................................................................................... 1532 Ongoing proceedings♠.................................................................................... 1532

SCHEDULE* ♠/ SCHEDULE 1†‡◊ - OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS SCHEDULE 2 - SAVINGS, TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS†/ TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS‡ DICTIONARY Part 1 - Definitions Part 2 - Other expressions

40

Uniform Evidence Law

CHAPTER 1 – PRELIMINARY Cth Act: Introductory Note

Outline of this Act This Act sets out the federal rules of evidence. Generally speaking, the Act applies to proceedings in federal courts (see section 4), but some provisions extend beyond such proceedings (see Note 2 to subsection 4(1)). Chapter 2 is about how evidence is adduced in proceedings. Chapter 3 is about admissibility of evidence in proceedings. Chapter 4 is about proof of matters in proceedings. Chapter 5 deals with miscellaneous matters. The Dictionary at the end of this Act defines terms and expressions used in this Act. Related legislation This Act is in most respects uniform with the following State and Territory Acts: (a) the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); (b) the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas); (c) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic); (d) the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT); (e) the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT).While these Acts are in most respects identical to this Act, there are differences. The explanatory memorandum to the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 includes a table setting out the differences as at 8 July 2014. An updated version of the table is maintained by the Attorney-General’s Department on its website (http://www.ag.gov.au). [Ch 1 note am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 items 4 and 21; Act 100 of 2005, s 3 and Sch 1 item 14]

NSW Act: Introductory note:

Outline of this Act This Act sets out the State rules of evidence. Generally speaking, the Act applies to proceedings in State courts and before other persons or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence (see section 4). Chapter 2 is about how evidence is adduced in proceedings. Chapter 3 is about admissibility of evidence in proceedings. Chapter 4 is about proof of matters in proceedings. Chapter 5 deals with miscellaneous matters. The Dictionary at the end of this Act defines terms and expressions used in this Act. Related legislation This Act is in most respects uniform with the Evidence Act 1995 of the Commonwealth. The 2 Acts are drafted in identical terms except so far as differences are identified by

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

41

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

appropriate annotations to the texts, and except so far as minor drafting variations are required because one Act is a New South Wales Act and one Act is a Commonwealth Act. If one Act contains a provision that is not included in the other Act, the numbering of the other Act has a gap in the numbering in order to maintain consistent numbering for the other provisions. In relation to the taking of evidence outside New South Wales for the purposes of proceedings in the State and in relation to the taking of evidence in the State for the purposes of proceedings outside New South Wales see the Evidence on Commission Act 1995.

Vic Act: Introductory Note

Outline of this Act This Act sets out the State rules of evidence. Generally speaking, the Act applies to proceedings in State courts and before other persons or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence (see section 4). Chapter 2 is about how evidence is adduced in proceedings. Chapter 3 is about admissibility of evidence in proceedings. Chapter 4 is about proof of matters in proceedings. Chapter 5 deals with miscellaneous matters. The Dictionary at the end of this Act defines terms and expressions used in this Act. Related legislation This Act is in most respects uniform with the Evidence Act 1995 of the Commonwealth (the Commonwealth Act) and the Evidence Act 1995 of New South Wales (the New South Wales Act). The Acts are drafted in identical terms except so far as differences are identified by appropriate annotations to the texts, and except so far as minor drafting variations are required to accord with the drafting style of each jurisdiction. If one Act contains a provision that is not included in another Act, there is a gap in the numbering of the other Act in order to maintain consistent numbering for the other provisions. The Evidence Act 2001 of Tasmania also largely mirrors this legislation, but there are some departures.

ACT Act: Note 1 Introductory note This Act sets out the Territory rules of evidence. Generally speaking, the Act applies to proceedings in ACT courts and before other people or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence (see s 4). Note 2 Related legislation This Act is in most respects uniform with the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (the Commonwealth Act) and the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (the NSW Act). The Acts are drafted in identical terms except so far as differences are identified by appropriate annotations to the texts, and except so far as minor drafting variations are required to accord with the drafting style of each jurisdiction.

42

Uniform Evidence Law

s1

Part 1.1 - Formal matters

NT Act: Introductory Note

Outline of this Act This Act sets out the rules of evidence for the Territory. Generally speaking, the Act applies to proceedings in Territory courts and before other persons or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence (see section 4). Chapter 2 is about how evidence is adduced in proceedings. Chapter 3 is about admissibility of evidence in proceedings. Chapter 4 is about proof of matters in proceedings. Chapter 5 deals with miscellaneous matters. The Dictionary at the end of this Act defines terms and expressions used in this Act. Related legislation This Act is in most respects uniform with the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). These Acts are drafted in identical terms except so far as differences are identified by appropriate annotations to the texts, and except so far as minor drafting variations are required to accord with the drafting style of each jurisdiction. If one Act contains a provision that is not included in another Act, there is a gap in the numbering of the other Act in order to maintain consistent numbering for the other provisions.

Part 1.1 – Formal matters Cth Act: 1

Short title This Act may be cited as the Evidence Act 1995.

NSW Act: 1

Name of Act This Act is the Evidence Act 1995.

Vic Act: 1

Purpose The purpose of this Act is to make fresh provision for the law of evidence that is uniform with Commonwealth and New South Wales law. ACT Act: 1

Name of Act This Act is the Evidence Act 2011.

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

43

[EA.2.30]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s1

NT Act: 1

Short title This Act may be cited as the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act.

Cth Act: 2

Commencement

(1) This Part and the Dictionary at the end of this Act commence on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the remaining provisions of this Act commence on a day or days to be fixed by Proclamation. (3) If a provision referred to in subsection (2) does not commence under that subsection before 18 April 1995, it commences on that day. NSW Act: 2

Commencement

(1) This Part and the Dictionary at the end of this Act commence on the date of assent. (2) The remaining provisions of this Act commence on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation. Vic Act: 2

Commencement

(1) This Part and the Dictionary at the end of this Act come into operation on the day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the remaining provisions of this Act come into operation on a day or days to be proclaimed. (3) If a provision of this Act does not come into operation before 1 January 2010, it comes into operation on that day. ACT Act: 2

Commencement [Repealed]

[S 2 om Act 14 of 2001, s 89(4)]

NT Act: 2

Commencement

(1) This Part and the Dictionary at the end of this Act commence on the day on which the Administrator’s assent to this Act is declared. (2) The remaining provisions of this Act commence on the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice.

[EA.2.30]

General comments

The provisions of the Commonwealth Act and the NSW Act commenced in 1995. The provisions of the Victorian Act commenced on 1 January 2010. 44

Uniform Evidence Law

s3

Part 1.1 - Formal matters

[EA.2.30]

NT Act: 2A Object of Act The object of this Act is to make fresh provision for the law of evidence that is uniform with the following laws of the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria: (a) the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (the Commonwealth Act); (b) the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (the NSW Act); (c) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (the Victorian Act). Cth Act: 3

Definitions

(1) Expressions used in this Act (or in a particular provision of this Act) that are defined in the Dictionary at the end of this Act have the meanings given to them in the Dictionary. Note: Some expressions used in this Act are defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and have the meanings given to them in that Act.

(1A) The Dictionary at the end of this Act is part of this Act. [Subs (1A) insrt Act 46 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 2 item 566]

(2) Notes included in this Act are explanatory notes and do not form part of this Act. (3) Definitions in this Act of expressions used in this Act apply to its construction except insofar as the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires. [Subs (3) am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 22] [S 3 am Act 113 of 2015; Act 46 of 2011]

NSW Act: 3

Definitions

(1) Expressions used in this Act (or in a particular provision of this Act) that are defined in the Dictionary at the end of this Act have the meanings given to them in the Dictionary. (2) Notes included in this Act are explanatory notes and do not form part of this Act. (3) Without limiting the effect of, and subject to, section 34 of the Interpretation Act 1987, material that may be used in the interpretation of a provision of this Act includes any relevant report of a Law Reform Commission laid before either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth before the provision was enacted. Notes: 1

Some expressions used in this Act are defined in the Interpretation Act 1987, and have the meanings given to them in that Act. 2 The Commonwealth Act includes a different subsection (3). This is to the same effect as section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1987. Subsection (3) of the NSW Act is covered by section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 of the Commonwealth.

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

45

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s3

Vic Act: 3

Definitions

(1) Expressions used in this Act (or in a particular provision of this Act) that are defined in the Dictionary at the end of this Act have the meanings given to them in the Dictionary. (2) The Dictionary at the end of this Act forms part of this Act. Notes: 1

Some expressions used in this Act are defined in the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 and have the meanings given to them in that Act. 2 Subsection (2) differs from the Commonwealth Act and New South Wales Act. 3 The Commonwealth Act and New South Wales Act include an additional subsection regarding definitions which are unnecessary in Victoria due to the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984.

ACT Act: 3

Dictionary The dictionary at the end of this Act is part of this Act.

Note 1: The dictionary at the end of this Act defines certain terms used in this Act, and includes references (signpost definitions) to other terms defined elsewhere. For example, the signpost definition “Commonwealth record—see the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), dictionary.” means that the term “Commonwealth record” is defined in that dictionary and the definition applies to this Act. Note 2: A definition in the dictionary (including a signpost definition) applies to the entire Act unless the definition, or another provision of the Act, provides otherwise or the contrary intention otherwise appears (see Legislation Act, s 155 and s 156(1)). Note 3: This section differs from the Commonwealth Act and NSW Act.

NT Act: 3

Definitions

(1) Expressions used in this Act (or in a particular provision of this Act) that are defined in the Dictionary at the end of this Act have the meanings given to them in the Dictionary. (2) Notes included in this Act are explanatory notes and do not form part of this Act. Notes for section 3: 1

Some expressions used in this Act are defined in the Interpretation Act and have the meanings given to them in that Act. 2 The Commonwealth Act and NSW Act include an additional subsection (3) regarding definitions which is unnecessary in the Territory because of section 18 of the Interpretation Act.

46

Uniform Evidence Law

s 3B

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.3A.30]

Vic Act: 3A Notes Notes do not form part of this Act. Note: This section does not appear in the Commonwealth Act or New South Wales Act.

ACT Act: 3A

Numbering

(1) To maintain consistent section numbering between this Act and the Commonwealth Act— (a) if the Commonwealth Act contains a section that is not included in this Act—the section number and heading appearing in the Commonwealth Act are included in this Act despite the omission of the body of the section; and (b) if this Act contains a section that is not included in the Commonwealth Act—the section is numbered so as to maintain consistency in numbering between sections common to both Acts. (2) A section number and heading mentioned in subsection (1)(a) form part of this Act. (3) If a provision of this Act (other than a section) is numbered differently from the equivalent provision of the Commonwealth Act, the provision of this Act may be referred to using the number of the equivalent provision of the Commonwealth Act. Note 1: A note appears under each heading mentioned in s (1)(a) describing the omitted section of the Commonwealth Act. Note 2: A note appears under each section mentioned in s (1)(b) highlighting the non-appearance of an equivalent section in the Commonwealth Act. Note 3: The Commonwealth Act and NSW Act do not include this section.

[EA.3A.30]

General comments

The Note to this Victorian section is strictly correct in stating that s 3A does not appear in the Commonwealth Act or the NSW Act. However the substance of the section does appear in s 3(2) of both the Commonwealth Act and the NSW Act.

ACT Act: 3B

Notes

A note included in this Act is explanatory and is not part of this Act. Note 1: See the Legislation Act, s 127(1), (4) and (5) for the legal status of notes. Note 2: The Commonwealth Act and NSW Act do not include this section.

Part 1.2 – Application of this Act

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

47

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s4

Cth Act: 4

Courts and proceedings to which Act applies

(1) This Act applies to all proceedings in a federal court, including proceedings that: (a) relate to bail; or (b) are interlocutory proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind; or (c) are heard in chambers; or (d) subject to subsection (2), relate to sentencing. Note 2: Federal court is defined in the Dictionary. The definition includes persons or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence. Note 3: Some provisions of this Act extend beyond proceedings in federal courts. These provisions deal with: • extension of specified provisions to cover proceedings in all Australian courts (section 5); • faith and credit to be given to documents properly authenticated (section 185); • swearing of affidavits for use in Australian courts exercising federal jurisdiction or similar jurisdiction (section 186); • abolition of the privilege against self-incrimination for bodies corporate (section 187). Note 4: See section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 for the application of this Act to proceedings in a State court exercising federal jurisdiction. [Subs (1) am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 items 5–7 and 23; Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 items 1 and 2]

(2) If such a proceeding relates to sentencing: (a) this Act applies only if the court directs that the law of evidence applies in the proceeding; and (b) if the court specifies in the direction that the law of evidence applies only in relation to specified matters—the direction has effect accordingly. (3) The court must make a direction if: (a) a party to the proceeding applies for such a direction in relation to the proof of a fact; and (b) in the court’s opinion, the proceeding involves proof of that fact, and that fact is or will be significant in determining a sentence to be imposed in the proceeding. (4) The court must make a direction if the court considers it appropriate to make such a direction in the interests of justice. (5) Subject to subsection (5A), the provisions of this Act (other than sections 185, 186 and 187) do not apply to: (a) an appeal from a court of a State, including an appeal from a court of a State exercising federal jurisdiction; or (b) an appeal from a court of the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory or an external Territory; or (c) [Repealed] (d) [Repealed] 48

Uniform Evidence Law

s4

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

(e)

a review of a decision or order of a magistrate and any appeal from such a review; except so far as the provisions apply to proceedings in all Australian courts. [Subs (5) am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 items 8–10; Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1; Act 140 of 1995, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1]

(5A) Despite subsection (5), this Act applies to an appeal to the Family Court of Australia from a court of summary jurisdiction of a State or Territory exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975. [Subs (5A) am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1; insrt Act 140 of 1995, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2]

(6) [Repealed] [Subs (6) rep Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 items 11 and 24; am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 2 item 1; Act 140 of 1995, s 3 and Sch 2 item 3] [S 4 am Act 113 of 2015; Act 135 of 2008; Act 140 of 1995]

NSW Act: 4

Courts and proceedings to which Act applies

(1) This Act applies to all proceedings in a NSW court, including proceedings that: (a) relate to bail, subject to Division 4 of Part 3 of the Bail Act 2013, or (b) are interlocutory proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind, or (c) are heard in chambers, or (d) subject to subsection (2), relate to sentencing. [Subs (1) am Act 5 of 2014, Sch 2.18[1]; Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[1]]

(2) If such a proceeding relates to sentencing: (a) this Act applies only if the court directs that the law of evidence applies in the proceeding, and (b) if the court specifies in the direction that the law of evidence applies only in relation to specified matters—the direction has effect accordingly. (3) The court must make a direction if: (a) a party to the proceeding applies for such a direction in relation to the proof of a fact, and (b) in the court’s opinion, the proceeding involves proof of that fact, and that fact is or will be significant in determining a sentence to be imposed in the proceeding. (4) The court must make a direction if the court considers it appropriate to make such a direction in the interests of justice. Notes: 1

Section 4 of the Commonwealth Act differs from this section. It applies that Act to proceedings in a federal court or an ACT court. Some provisions of the Commonwealth Act extend beyond proceedings in federal courts and ACT courts (see sections 5, 185, 186 and 187 of the Commonwealth Act). 2 NSW court is defined in the Dictionary. The definition includes persons or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence. 3 The Commonwealth Act includes 2 additional subsections that exclude the application of that Act to appeals from a court of a State (including appeals from a court of a State exercising federal jurisdiction) and certain other courts. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

49

Chapter 1 - Preliminary 4

s4

See section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 of the Commonwealth for the application of this Act to proceedings in a State court exercising federal jurisdiction.

[Subs (4) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[2]] [S 4 am Act 5 of 2014; Act 46 of 2007]

Vic Act: 4

Courts and proceedings to which Act applies

(1) This Act applies to all proceedings in a Victorian court, including proceedings that— (a) relate to bail; or (b) are interlocutory proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind; or (c) are heard in chambers; or (d) subject to subsection (2), relate to sentencing. (2) If such a proceeding relates to sentencing— (a) this Act applies only if the court directs that the law of evidence applies in the proceeding; and (b) if the court specifies in the direction that the law of evidence applies only in relation to specified matters—the direction has effect accordingly. (3) The court must make a direction if— (a) a party to the proceeding applies for such a direction in relation to the proof of a fact; and (b) in the court’s opinion, the proceeding involves proof of that fact, and that fact is or will be significant in determining a sentence to be imposed in the proceeding. (4) The court must make a direction if the court considers it appropriate to make such a direction in the interests of justice. (5) In this section, a proceeding that relates to sentencing includes a proceeding for an order under Part 4 of the Sentencing Act 1991. Notes: 1

Section 4 of the Commonwealth Act differs from this section. It applies that Act to proceedings in a federal court or an Australian Capital Territory court. Some provisions of the Commonwealth Act extend beyond proceedings in federal courts and Australian Capital Territory courts (see sections 5, 185, 186 and 187 of the Commonwealth Act). 2 Victorian court is defined in the Dictionary. The definition includes persons or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence. 3 The Commonwealth Act includes 2 additional subsections that exclude the application of that Act to appeals from a court of a State (including appeals from a court of a State exercising federal jurisdiction) and certain other courts. 4 Provisions in other Victorian Acts which relieve courts from the obligation to apply the rules of evidence in certain proceedings are preserved by section 8 of this Act. These include— • section 215 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005; • sections 8(6) and 13A of the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987; • section 38 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997; • section 127 of the Electoral Act 2002.

50

Uniform Evidence Law

s4

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act 5

Subsection (5) is not included in the Commonwealth Act or New South Wales Act.

[S 4 am Act 67 of 2013, s 649 and Sch 9 item 17]

ACT Act: 4

Courts and proceedings to which Act applies

(1) This Act applies to all proceedings in an ACT court, including proceedings that— (a) relate to bail; or (b) are interlocutory proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind; or (c) are heard in chambers; or (d) subject to subsection (2), relate to sentencing. (2) If a proceeding relates to sentencing— (a) this Act applies only if the court directs that the law of evidence applies in the proceeding; and (b) if the court states in the direction that the law of evidence applies only in relation to stated matters—the direction has effect accordingly. (3) The court must make a direction under this section if— (a) a party to the proceeding applies for the direction in relation to the proof of a fact; and (b) in the court’s opinion, the proceeding involves proof of the fact, and the fact is or will be significant in deciding a sentence to be imposed in the proceeding. (4) The court must make a direction under this section if the court considers it appropriate in the interests of justice. Note: This section differs from the Commonwealth Act, s 4.

NT Act: 4

Courts and proceedings to which Act applies

(1) This Act applies to all proceedings in a Territory court, including proceedings that: (a) relate to bail; or (b) are interlocutory proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind; or (c) are heard in chambers; or (d) subject to subsection (2), relate to sentencing. (2) If such a proceeding relates to sentencing: (a) this Act applies only if the court directs that the law of evidence applies in the proceeding; and (b) if the court specifies in the direction that the law of evidence applies only in relation to specified matters — the direction has effect accordingly. (3) The court must make a direction if: (a) a party to the proceeding applies for such a direction in relation to the proof of a fact; and © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

51

[EA.4.30]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

(b)

s4

in the court’s opinion, the proceeding involves proof of that fact, and that fact is or will be significant in determining a sentence to be imposed in the proceeding.

(4) The court must make a direction if the court considers it appropriate to make such a direction in the interests of justice. (5) In this section, a proceeding that relates to sentencing includes a proceeding for an order under Part 5 of the Sentencing Act or Part 5, Division 9 of the Traffıc Act. Notes for section 4: 1

2 3

4

5

Section 4 of the Commonwealth Act differs from this section. It applies that Act to proceedings in a federal court or an Australian Capital Territory court. Some provisions of the Commonwealth Act extend beyond proceedings in federal courts and Australian Capital Territory courts (see sections 5, 185, 186 and 187 of the Commonwealth Act). Territory court is defined in the Dictionary. The definition includes persons or bodies required to apply the laws of evidence. The Commonwealth Act includes 2 additional subsections that exclude the application of that Act to appeals from a court of a State or Territory (including appeals from a court exercising federal jurisdiction) and certain other courts. Provisions in other Territory Acts which relieve courts from the obligation to apply the rules of evidence in certain proceedings are preserved by section 8 of this Act. These include, for example: • section 39 of the Coroners Act; • section 93(2) of the Care and Protection of Children Act; • section 257(2) of the Electoral Act; • section 49(2) of the Ombudsman Act; • section 25(2) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Subsection (5) is not included in the Commonwealth Act or NSW Act.

[EA.4.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 102, paras 2.73–2.81; ALRC 38, s 11, para 57.

[EA.4.60]

Definitions [Cth Act only]

The term “federal court” is defined in the Dictionary: “federal court” means: (a) the High Court; or (b) any other court created by the Parliament (other than the Supreme Court of a Territory); and includes a person or body (other than a court or magistrate of a State or Territory) that, in performing a function or exercising a power under a law of the Commonwealth, is required to apply the laws of evidence.

“ACT court” is defined in the Dictionary: “ACT court” means the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory or any other court of the Australian Capital Territory, and includes a person or body that, in performing a function or exercising a power under a law of the Australian Capital Territory, is required to apply the laws of evidence.

“Australian court” is defined in the Dictionary: “Australian court” means: 52

Uniform Evidence Law

s4

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.4.150]

(a) the High Court; or (b) a court exercising federal jurisdiction; or (c) a court of a State or Territory; or (d) a judge, justice or arbitrator under an Australian law; or (e) a person or body authorised by an Australian law, or by consent of parties, to hear, receive and examine evidence; or (f) a person or body that, in exercising a function under an Australian law, is required to apply the laws of evidence.

“Australian law” is defined in the Dictionary: “Australian law” means a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

Clause 9 of Pt 2 of the Dictionary provides: References to laws 9

(1) A reference in this Act to a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a foreign country is a reference to a law (whether written or unwritten) of or in force in that place. (2) A reference in this Act to an Australian law is a reference to an Australian law (whether written or unwritten) of or in force in Australia.

[EA.4.90]

Definitions [NSW Act only]

The term “NSW court” is defined in the Dictionary to mean: (a) the Supreme Court, or (b) any other court created by Parliament, and includes any person or body (other than a court) that, in exercising a function under the law of the State, is required to apply the laws of evidence.

[EA.4.120]

Definitions [Vic Act only]

Section 4 of the Victorian Act differs from the NSW and Commonwealth Acts in subsections (1) and (5) and the Notes. The term “Victorian court” is defined in the Dictionary to mean: (a) the Supreme Court, or (b) any other court created by Parliament— and includes any person or body (other than a court) that, in exercising a function under the law of the State, is required to apply the laws of evidence.

[EA.4.150]

General comments [Cth Act only]

In practical terms, the Commonwealth Act applies to proceedings in the High Court, Federal Court and Family Court and other federal courts. Pursuant to a proclamation made on 9 February 2012, in accordance with s 4(6), it ceased to apply on 1 March 2012 to proceedings in an ACT court, except so far as the provisions of the Act apply to proceedings in all Australian courts (the ACT Evidence Act 2011 came into force on 1 March 2012). Subject to s 8 (see [EA.4.300]), the Commonwealth Act also applies to Commonwealth tribunals © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

53

[EA.4.150]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s4 1

2

which are required to apply the law of evidence. It has been held that the Refugee Review Tribunal is not a body that is required to apply the laws of evidence, because s 420(1) of the Migration Act 1958 provides that the Tribunal is “not bound by … rules of evidence”. In so concluding, Finkelstein J observed (at 408–409): In arriving at this conclusion I have ignored the difference in language between s 420(1) which provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and the definitions which refer to a body that is required to apply the laws of evidence. I do not regard this difference in expression as material. Each expression is apt to refer to the same subject namely matters that are or are not admissible in a proceeding and the method by which those matters are placed before a decision-maker … Further, I do not regard the fact that the Tribunal is obliged to observe certain rules that are sometimes called rules of evidence as affecting my conclusion. The rules that I have in mind are the various privileges that may be relied upon to exclude evidence being led before the Tribunal. The privileges are legal professional privilege, the privilege against self incrimination and what was once referred to as Crown privilege but is now known as public interest immunity. While each of these privileges is commonly regarded as part of the rules of evidence, they have application to a proceeding before the Tribunal not because they are rules of evidence but because they are fundamental principles of the common law that are capable of being exercised not only in curial proceedings but in administrative and investigative proceedings as well.

In Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 108 FCR 311, the Full Court of the Federal Court held (at [189]) that proceedings for review in the Federal Court of extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) were subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995, notwithstanding the fact that the Act did not apply to the initial proceedings brought before a magistrate (since the magistrate was not exercising judicial power but acting as a persona designata in judicial proceedings). The word “proceeding” is not defined in the Act. It has been held that an examination conducted by a court under s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (and other similar provisions in Div 1, Pt 5.9) is such a “proceeding” even though it is “not like usual court proceedings and is in the nature of a facilitated investigation by one party”.3 The winding up of an insolvent company by a liquidator appointed by the court is a process which is ultimately subject to the control of the court and is a proceeding in the court.4 However, a narrower view has been taken by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Griffın v Pantzer (2004) 137 FCR 209; 207 ALR 169; [2004] FCAFC 113 when it held that an examination under s 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was not a “proceeding” for the purposes of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Allsop J (with whom Ryan J and Heerey J agreed) stated at 259-260; [198] – [207]: 1. Thus, it does not apply to those tribunals, such as the AAT, which are not required to apply the rules of evidence. 2. See Epeabaka v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) 150 ALR 397. 3. Re Interchase Corp Ltd (1996) 68 FCR 481 at 487 per Kiefel J; see also Doran Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq), Re (2002) 168 FLR 116; 194 ALR 101; [2002] NSWSC 215 at [103] per Campbell J (liquidator’s examination is a “proceeding”); Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Currockbilly Pty Ltd (2002) 172 FLR 99; [2002] NSWSC 1061 at 108; [48]. 4. Rosseau Pty Ltd (in liq) v Jay-O-Bees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2004] NSWSC 818; De Bortoli Wines Pty Ltd v HIH Insurance Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 645 at [29].

54

Uniform Evidence Law

s4

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.4.150]

The word “proceedings” is capable of wide and flexible application. In the Evidence Act, however, the proceedings contemplated are those conducted by a court, or by a person or by a body who or which is required to apply the laws of evidence. … [Paragraph 57 in] the Final Report of the Australian Law Reform Commission Report on Evidence (No 38) … makes clear that it is proceedings “whenever evidence is to be adduced”. It is not easy to see how an examination under s 81 is such a proceeding. It is not between parties. It is not the resolution or agitation of a lis at which evidence is adduced under the rules of evidence. It does not have parties or witnesses properly so-called. It is an interrogation – a fact-finding exercise of the kind discussed by Lord Hanworth MR in In Re Paget; Ex parte Offıcial Receiver [1927] 2 Ch 85. The notes or transcript of the “evidence given at the examination” (see s 81(17)) can be used as evidence, but the “evidence” is only the answers on oath to an interrogation by the trustee or creditor. … The examination may be a proceeding for the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. It does not follow that it is a proceeding in which it is intended that evidence be adduced from witnesses. … In my view, s 128 of the Evidence Act, along with the other provisions of the Evidence Act, does and do not apply to an examination under s 81.

Allsop J expressly disagreed with the view of Kiefel J in Re Interchase Corp Ltd (1996) 68 FCR 481, noted above, that an examination under s 596B of the Corporations Law was a proceeding for the purpose of the Evidence Act 1995. In Meteyard v Love (2005) 65 NSWLR 36; [2005] NSWCA 444 Basten JA noted the differing approaches but concluded at 56 (NSWLR); [76] that it was not necessary to resolve them given the operation of the NSW Supreme Court Rules 1970.5 It has also been held that the Act does not apply to cost assessments by costs assessors where they do not act as officers of the court and have no power to take sworn evidence.6 In ALRC 102, after citing the judgment of Allsop J in Griffın v Pantzer, it was stated at para 2.77: Hence, the present state of the law seems to be that “proceedings” in s 4(1) of the uniform Evidence Acts encompasses any step in a suit or action where there is an issue between parties in dispute and the suit or action involves evidence “adduced under the rules of evidence”.

However, it was proposed that the words “in relation” which appeared in various sub-sections of this provision prior to the amendments following on ALRC 102 should be deleted on the basis that they are an example of “verbosity in prepositions” (para 2.81). It was observed at para 2.80 that “the evidentiary rules prescribed in the uniform Evidence Acts have been held incapable of application otherwise than in the course of a hearing of a proceeding in a court”, with the consequence that “there is no ‘proceeding’ outside of the courts identified in s 4 to which the ‘proceedings’ can ‘relate’.” This explanation for the deletion of the words is echoed in the Explanatory Memoranda. 5. Rule 13 “applies where a question is put to a person in the course of examination before … any examiner, referee, arbitrator or other person authorised to receive evidence”. However, in De Bortoli Wines Pty Limited v HIH Insurance Limited (in liq) [2011] FCA 645 Stone J held at [29] – [38] that while the narrower approach might be appropriate in the context of the application of the privilege against self-incrimination, it should not be applied in the context of the admissibility of business records. 6. Ryan v Hansen t/as Hansens Solicitors (2000) 49 NSWLR 184. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

55

[EA.4.180]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s4

As indicated in Note 3 to s 4(1), some provisions of the Act apply to all Australian courts. These provisions are: • s 5, considered below, which extends the operation of a number of provisions to all proceedings in an Australian court (as defined); • s 185, which requires “full faith and credit” to be given to “all public acts, records and judicial proceedings of a State or Territory that are proved or authenticated in accordance with this Act”; • s 186, which deals with the swearing of affidavits for use in Australian courts exercising federal jurisdiction or similar jurisdiction; • s 187, which abolishes the privilege against self-incrimination for bodies corporate in all proceedings “under a law of the Commonwealth or the Australian Capital Territory or in a proceeding in a federal court or an ACT court”.

[EA.4.180]

General comments [NSW and Victorian Acts only]

The NSW Act applies to proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court, any other court created by the NSW Parliament (including such a court exercising federal jurisdiction) and any person or body that “in exercising a function under the law of the State, is required to apply the laws of evidence”: see [EA.4.90]. The Victorian Act applies in substantially the same way: see [EA.4.120]. Of course, this is subject to a provision in another Act providing otherwise (see [EA.4.300]). In regard to the meaning of the term “proceeding”, see the discussion in [EA.4.150] above. As to the meaning of the term “court created by the NSW Parliament”, it has been held that the NSW Coroners Court, while it was a court and ultimately had a purely statutory jurisdiction by 1980, is not a “court created by Parliament”: I consider that the phrase “created by Parliament” means “created by Parliament as such” so that it is rather a formal definition than a descriptive one. If this be correct, it is clear from the legislation to which I have referred that the coroner’s court is not created by Parliament in the sense of the definition. Even if the conclusion stated above be incorrect, I do not consider that the termination of the prior jurisdiction of the coroner’s court by the 1980 Act and its replacement involves the creation of a new court. Whilst the substitutionary process is undoubtedly very significant, its demonstration does not conclude the matter. On balance, I am of the view that the characteristic jurisdiction of the coroner’s court was essentially continued although those functions which earlier depended upon the common law (and it may have been that most of them did) were adopted by the statute and given Parliamentary authority. However, I think that the court as an institution of public justice continued and its legislative history did not lead to the creation of a court by Parliament.7

Even where the Act does not apply to initial proceedings, it may apply to subsequent proceedings by way of review or appeal.8 7. Decker v State Coroner (NSW) (1999) 46 NSWLR 415 at [16] – [17] per Adams J. In contrast, the Children’s Court is a court created by Parliament: TS v Constable Courtney James [2014] NSWSC 984 at [20]. 8. Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 108 FCR 311 at [189]; Dutton v O’Shane [2002] NSWSC 1086 at [104] – [106] per James J.

56

Uniform Evidence Law

s4

[EA.4.210]

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.4.300]

Bail proceedings

Under s 9(2)(b) of the Commonwealth Act it is provided that “this Act does not affect a law of a State or Territory so far as the law relates to … bail”. Section 94(2) provides that Pt 3.6 (Tendency and Coincidence) of the Act does not apply so far as a proceeding relates to bail. Section 31 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) provides that, in general, a “bail authority ... is not bound by the principles or rules of law regarding the admission of evidence”. In Victoria, s 8(1) of the Bail Act 1977 provides that the court “may make such inquiries on oath or otherwise of and concerning the accused as the court considers desirable” (subject to limitations on questioning the accused), and permits the informant or prosecutor to, “in addition to any other relevant evidence, submit evidence, whether by affidavit or otherwise”. However, s 8(2) expressly maintains the application of Part 3.10 (Privileges) of this Act.

[EA.4.240]

Interlocutory proceedings

While the Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Acts apply to “interlocutory proceedings” and proceedings “of a similar kind”, it should be noted that s 9(1) of the Commonwealth Act provides that the Act “does not affect any Australian law so far as the law relates to a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding”. Similarly, s 9(2)(c) of the NSW Act and the Victorian Act provides that the Act: does not affect the operation of [a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to evidence in a proceeding to which this Act applies] so far as it relates to … (c) a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding.

See, generally, [EA.9.180]. The term “interlocutory proceedings” is discussed at [EA.75.60].

[EA.4.270]

Sentencing proceedings

Apart from those provisions of the Commonwealth Act which apply to proceedings in all Australian courts, the Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Acts only apply in sentencing proceedings to the extent that the sentencing court directs: s 4(1)(d), (2). Section 4(3) and (4) provide for the circumstances in which such a direction should be made. Considerable discretion is conferred on the sentencing court. It has been held that, where sentencing proceedings follow a trial, the provisions of the Act should apply.9 Section 94(2) provides that Pt 3.6 (Tendency and Coincidence) of the Act does not apply so far as a proceeding relates to sentencing. If a direction is not made under s 4, the common law relating to evidence continues to apply (except to the extent that it has been affected by other statutory provisions).10

[EA.4.300]

Other proceedings where the Act does not apply

Section 8 provides that this Act does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act. It follows that the rules of evidence established by this Act will not 9. R v Lewis (unreported, NSW SC, Dowd J, 25 October 1996). 10. R v Bourchas (2002) 113 A Crim R 413; [2002] NSWCCA 373; Farkas v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 141 at [14]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

57

[EA.4.300]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s5

apply to a proceeding where a provision in another Act provides otherwise. Note 4 to s 4 of the Victorian Act gives specific examples of provisions in other Victorian Acts which relieve courts from the obligation to apply the rules of evidence in certain proceedings.

Cth Act: 5

Extended application of certain provisions The provisions of this Act referred to in the Table apply to all proceedings in an Australian court, including proceedings that: (a) relate to bail; or (b) are interlocutory proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind; or (c) are heard in chambers; or (d) relate to sentencing. TABLE Provisions of this Act Subsection 70(2) Section Section Section Section

143 150 153 154

Section Section Section Section Section Section

155 155A 157 158 159 163

Section 182

Subject matter Evidence of tags and labels in Customs prosecutions and Excise prosecutions Matters of law Seals and signatures Gazettes and other official documents Documents published by authority of Parliaments etc. Official records Commonwealth documents Public documents relating to court processes Evidence of certain public documents Official statistics Proof of letters having been sent by Commonwealth agencies Commonwealth records, postal articles sent by Commonwealth agencies and certain Commonwealth documents

Note: Australian court is defined in the Dictionary to cover all courts in Australia. The definition extends to persons and bodies that take evidence or that are required to apply the laws of evidence. [S 5 am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 items 25 and 26; Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 2 item 2; Act 125 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 6 items 1 and 2]

NSW Act: 5

Extended application of certain provisions

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision that extends the application of specified provisions of the Commonwealth Act to proceedings in all Australian courts.

58

Uniform Evidence Law

s5

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.5.30]

Vic Act: 5

Extended application of certain provisions

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision that extends the application of specified provisions of that Act to proceedings in all Australian courts.

ACT Act: 5

Extended application of certain provisions

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision extending the application of stated provisions of the Commonwealth Act to proceedings in all Australian courts.

NT Act: 5

Extended application of certain provisions

Note for section 5: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision that extends the application of specified provisions of that Act to proceedings in all Australian courts.

[EA.5.30]

Definitions [Cth Act only]

The term “Australian court” is defined in the Dictionary: “Australian court” means: (a) the High Court; or (b) a court exercising federal jurisdiction; or (c) a court of a State or Territory; or (d) a judge, justice or arbitrator under an Australian law; or (e) a person or body authorised by an Australian law, or by consent of parties, to hear, receive and examine evidence; or (f) a person or body that, in exercising a function under an Australian law, is required to apply the laws of evidence.

It has been held11 that the Refugee Review Tribunal is not a body that is required to apply the laws of evidence, because s 420(1) of the Migration Act 1958 provides that the Tribunal is “not bound by … rules of evidence” (see [EA.4.150]). On the other hand: the Tribunal is a body that is authorised by an Australian law, the Migration Act, to hear, receive and examine evidence: see the discussion of the powers and functions of the Tribunal earlier in these reasons. It follows that the Tribunal is an Australian court in accordance with para (e) of the definition of that court.12

However, it was also held that the proceedings of the Tribunal were not governed by the tabled provisions in s 5(1) (see [EA.8.60]).

11. Epeabaka v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) 150 ALR 397 at 408 per Finkelstein J. 12. Epeabaka at 409. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

59

[EA.6.30]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s6

Cth Act: 6

Territories This Act extends to each external Territory.

[S 6 am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 27]

NSW Act: 6

Territories

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision extending that Act to each external Territory.

Vic Act: 6

Territories

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision extending that Act to each external Territory.

ACT Act: 6

Territories

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision extending that Act to each external territory.

NT Act: 6

Territories

Note for section 6: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision extending that Act to each external Territory.

[EA.6.30]

General comments

It follows that those provisions of the Commonwealth Act that extend to all Australian courts apply to courts in each external Territory.

Cth Act: 7

Act binds Crown This Act binds the Crown in all its capacities.

[S 7 am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 28]

NSW Act: 7

Act binds Crown This Act binds the Crown in right of New South Wales and also, so far as the legislative power of Parliament permits, in all its other capacities. Vic Act: 7

Act binds Crown This Act binds the Crown in right of Victoria and, in so far as the legislative power of Parliament permits, the Crown in all its other capacities.

60

Uniform Evidence Law

s8

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.7.30]

ACT Act: 7

Act binds Crown

Note: The Commonwealth Act and NSW Act include a provision binding the Crown. The provision is unnecessary in the ACT (see Legislation Act, s 121).

NT Act: 7

Act binds Crown This Act binds the Crown in right of the Territory and, to the extent the legislative power of the Legislative Assembly permits, the Crown in all its other capacities.

[EA.7.30]

General comments

In New South Wales v Public Transport Ticketing Corporation [2011] NSWCA 60 the NSW Court of Appeal held that, taking into account this provision in the NSW Act, the State of New South Wales is a “person” for the purposes of ss 130 and 131A of the Act (Allsop P, Hodgson JA and Sackville AJA agreeing, at [39]).

Cth Act: 8

Operation of other Acts etc.

(1) This Act does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act, other than sections 68, 79, 80 and 80A of the Judiciary Act 1903. (2) This Act does not affect the operation of regulations that: (a) are made under an Act other than this Act; and (b) are in force on the commencement of this section. However, this subsection ceases to apply to a regulation once it is amended after that commencement. (3) This Act has effect subject to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. [Subs (3) am Act 55 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 3 item 174; Act 156 of 1999, s 3 and Sch 12 item 24]

(4) [Repealed] [Subs (4) rep Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 12]

(5) [Repealed] [Subs (5) rep Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 12]

(6) [Repealed] [Subs (6) rep Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 items 12 and 29] [S 8 am Act 113 of 2015; Act 55 of 2001; Act 156 of 1999]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

61

[EA.8.30]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s8

NSW Act: 8

Operation of other Acts This Act does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act.

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes additional subsections relating to the operation of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 of the Commonwealth and certain laws in force in the ACT. It also provides for the regulations to have continued effect (until amended) after the commencement of the Commonwealth section. [S 8 am Act 34 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 4.17[1]]

Vic Act: 8

Operation of Acts This Act does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act.

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes additional subsections relating to the operation of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 of the Commonwealth and certain laws in force in the Australian Capital Territory. It also provides for the regulations to have continued effect (until amended) after the commencement of the Commonwealth section.

ACT Act: 8

Operation of other Acts This Act does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act.

Examples: 1 Bail Act 1992, s 19(2) 2 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991, ch 5 Note 1: This section differs from the Commonwealth Act, s 8. Differences include additional subsections relating to the operation of the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). Note 2: An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132). [S 8 am Act 40 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 1[1.13]; Act 48 of 2011, s 3 and Sch 1[1.25] and [1.26]]

NT Act: 8

Operation of Acts This Act does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act.

Note for section 8: The Commonwealth Act includes additional subsections relating to the operation of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) and certain laws in force in the Australian Capital Territory. It also provides for the regulations to have continued effect (until amended) after the commencement of the Commonwealth section.

[EA.8.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 14.

[EA.8.60]

General comments [Cth Act only]

It is suggested that the Commonwealth provision creates a hierarchy among Commonwealth laws:

62

Uniform Evidence Law

s8

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.8.60]

1. The provisions of other Commonwealth laws (except ss 68, 79, 80 and 80A of the Judiciary Act 1903) and of regulations which were in force on the commencement of this Act (and until they are amended) prevail over this Act. 2. This Act prevails over ss 68, 79, 80 and 80A of the Judiciary Act 1903, but they continue to operate subject to any inconsistency with this Act. In respect of the first point, the meaning of the proposition that the Evidence Act“does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act” (other than parts of the Judiciary Act 1903) was considered by Finkelstein J in the Federal Court in Epeabaka v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) 150 ALR 397 at 409 in relation to the possible application of s 150 of the Evidence Act 1995 to the Refugee Review Tribunal by reason of s 5 of the Act, on the assumption that the Tribunal fell within the definition of an “Australian court” (see [EA.5.30]). He observed: Section 8(1) is one of a number of provisions in Pt 1.2 which are concerned with the application of the Evidence Act. The subsection provides that the Evidence Act does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act. The question thus raised is whether s 8(1) prevents the tabled provisions in s 5(1) having application to proceedings before the Tribunal. The scope of operation of s 8(1) is not clear. There will be no difficulty in applying the sub-section in the case where a provision of the Evidence Act is directly inconsistent with the provision of some other enactment. In that event the provision of that other enactment will prevail. But what if there is no direct inconsistency. Some indication of how s 8(1) is to operate in that circumstance may be gathered from s 9(1). … When s 8(1) and s 9(1) are considered together the legislative intention that is disclosed is that where a court, whether it is an Australian court or a federal court, is not required to observe the rules of evidence the Evidence Act will not operate so as to impose that obligation. Here again reference should be made to s 420(1) of the Migration Act which provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence. If a proceeding before the Tribunal was governed by s 150 the Tribunal would be required to receive a particular document as part of the evidence in a proceeding before it when it would not be required to do so if s 420(1) was the sole provision that applied. Thus there is, in a general sense, an inconsistency between the two provisions. It follows, in my opinion, that s 8(1) renders s 5(1) inapplicable to proceedings before the Tribunal.

This analysis was accepted as correct by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Commissioner of Patents v Sherman [2008] FCAFC 182 at [16]. It follows that the Evidence Act“does not affect the operation of the provisions of any other Act” (other than parts of the Judiciary Act 1903) where there is any direct or implied inconsistency.13 For further discussion of this issue, see commentary on the NSW provision, below. In respect of the second point, it may be noted that s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 provides: The laws of each State or Territory, including the laws relating to procedure, evidence, and the competency of witnesses, shall, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or the laws of the Commonwealth, be binding on all Courts exercising federal jurisdiction in that State or Territory in all cases to which they are applicable.

13. See also Re Schofield; Ex parte Rangott v P & B Baron Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 280 at 285–286 per Finn J. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

63

[EA.8.60]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s8

The issue is the extent to which this Act “otherwise provides”. As Basten JA stated in Meteyard v Love (2005) 65 NSWLR 36; [2005] NSWCA 444 at 55 (NSWLR); [71]: … the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) may “otherwise provide” in relation to the State Evidence Act. That Act does not, however, apply except in relation to “proceedings in a federal court or an ACT court”: s 4(1). It is not a Commonwealth law which otherwise provides for present purposes.

In Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) (2006) 165 A Crim R 151; 205 FLR 217; [2006] NSWCCA 373, Barr and Hall JJ observed at [722] that the requirement in s 31(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth) that “it would be reasonable to conclude” that a person acted for a specified purpose was an example of legislation that “otherwise provides” to s 141 of the Evidence Act (which provides that a prosecution case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt) so that, in that respect, s 141 was not picked up by s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 for the purposes of a federal prosecution in a NSW court. For proceedings in a federal court, in respect of the rules of admissibility it appears clear that this Act effectively covers the field to the exclusion of State and Territory law (including common law) since s 56(1) provides: Except as otherwise provided by this Act, evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is admissible in the proceeding.

See the Introduction at [EA.Intro.120]. Thus, federal courts will only apply the rules of admissibility in this Act. For this reason, Branson J held in Violi v Berrivale Orchards Ltd (2000) 99 FCR 580; 173 ALR 818; [2000] FCA 797 at [45] that the intent behind s 138 (in Chapter 3 of the Act) was inconsistent with the continued operation of s 13 of the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW) in the Federal Court.14 Similarly, the rules relating to the competence and compellability of witnesses (Div 1 of Pt 2.1) cover the field15 since s 12 provides: 12. Except as otherwise provided by this Act: (a) every person is competent to give evidence; and (b) a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence.

In respect of other areas of evidence law, State and Territory law will not be applied by federal courts where that law is inconsistent with the Act. Other State and Territory courts will apply those parts of this Act which apply to all Australian courts. These general observations must be qualified by those specific provisions in the Evidence Act and regulations which provide that some State and Territory laws continue to operate despite any inconsistency with this Act: • s 8(3) – Corporations Act 2001 and ASIC Law; • s 9(1) – a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding; • s 9(2) – laws relating to admissibility of evidence of jury deliberations (s 9(2)(a)); bail (s 9(2)(b)); and any requirement for admission of evidence in support of an alibi (s 9(2)(c)); 14. See also Sagacious Legal Pty Ltd v Westfarmers General Insurance Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 482 at [151]. 15. See R v Glasby (2000) 115 A Crim R 465 at [50]; Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [No 2] (2000) 100 FCR 229; [2000] FCA 1010 at [84] per von Doussa J.

64

Uniform Evidence Law

s8

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.8.90]

• s 9(3) – laws providing for the operation of a legal or evidential presumption (except so far as this Act is, expressly or by necessary intendment, inconsistent with the presumption); the admissibility of a document to depend on whether stamp duty has been paid; a requirement that notice must be given before evidence may be adduced; the evidentiary effect to be given to a document issued under that State or Territory law; or proof of title to property.

[EA.8.90]

General comments [NSW, Vic, ACT, NT Acts]

The prevailing view in NSW is that s 8 ensures that this Act does not affect the operation of any other NSW Act, so that in the event that a provision of this Act is inconsistent with the provision of some other enactment, the other enactment will prevail. The same approach has been taken in Victoria.16 Thus, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal rejected an argument that s 409 of the Crimes Act 1900 (which is now found re-enacted in s 289 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)) was impliedly repealed by the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), particularly s 65.17 It has been held that the effect of s 8 is that s 128 of the Act does not apply to coroner’s courts in NSW because s 33 of the Coroners Act 1980 was “in substance inconsistent with the procedure for giving certificates set out in s 128 of the Act”.18 Similarly, it has been held that s 131 (dealing with settlement negotiations) does not apply to “the special process of settlement negotiation provided by a mediation ordered by the [Supreme] Court under the provisions of Pt 7B of the Supreme Court Act [NSW]”.19 In Punch v Council of the NSW Bar Assn [2007] NSWCA 93 the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal held that s 138 (dealing with improperly or unlawfully obtained evidence) did not apply to evidence of “a private conversation [that] has inadvertently or unexpectedly come to the knowledge of a person as a result, direct or indirect, of the use of a listening device pursuant to a warrant granted under Pt 4 of the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW)”. There is some apparently contrary authority in the Federal Court. In McNeill v The Queen [2008] FCAFC 80, the Full Court of the Federal Court (Black CJ, Lander and Besanko JJ) heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. Section 8 of the Evidence Act 2004(NI) is in identical terms to s 8 in the NSW Act. The Full Court concluded that s 410 of the Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI) was inconsistent with the terms of Ch 3 of the Evidence Act 2004 (NI), particularly s 138, and held at [76] that s 410 was impliedly repealed. It has to be said that the analysis of the Full Court is unpersuasive. There was no reference to contrary NSW authority. While some reference was certainly made to s 8 at [53] 16. See Director of Public Prosecutions v Gibson [2012] VSC 297 at [24]–[31]. 17. R v Gover (2000) 118 A Crim R 8 at [19] – [22] per Studdert J. 18. Decker v State Coroner (NSW) (1999) 46 NSWLR 415; [1999] NSWSC 369 at [22] per Adams J. Section 33 provided as follows: “A coroner holding an inquest or inquiry shall not be bound to observe the rules of procedure and evidence applicable to proceedings before a court of law, but no witness shall be compelled to answer any question which criminates the witness, or tends to criminate the witness, of any felony, misdemeanour or offence.” However, the Coroners Act was later amended to adopt the procedure in s 128. 19. Rajski v Tectran Corp Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 476; see also Azzi v Volvo Car Australia Pty Ltd (Costs) [2007] NSWSC 375. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

65

[EA.8.90]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s 8A

– [58], the Full Court appears to have relied on general statements of principle regarding inconsistent enactments, without giving effect to the terms of this provision.20 However, in a judgment later in 2008, Commissioner of Patents v Sherman [2008] FCAFC 182; 172 FCR 394, the Full Court of the Federal Court, without reference to McNeill, accepted at [16] in obiter dicta that the effect of s 8 is that where a provision of this Act is expressly and directly inconsistent with the provision of some other enactment, the provision of the other enactment will prevail.

Cth Act: 8A Application of the Criminal Code Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. [S 8A am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 items 30 and 31; insrt Act 24 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 25 item 1]

ACT Act: 8A Offences against Act—application of Criminal Code etc Other legislation applies in relation to offences against this Act. Note 1 Criminal Code: The Criminal Code, ch 2 applies to all offences against this Act (see Code, pt 2.1). The chapter sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility (including burdens of proof and general defences), and defines terms used for offences to which the Code applies (eg conduct, intention, recklessness and strict liability). Note 2 Penalty units: The Legislation Act, s 133 deals with the meaning of offence penalties that are expressed in penalty units. Note 3: This section differs from the Commonwealth Act, s 8A.

NT Act: 8A Application of Criminal Code An offence against this Act is an offence to which Part IIAA of the Criminal Code applies. Notes for section 8A: 1 Part IIAA of the Criminal Code states the general principles of criminal responsibility, establishes general defences, and deals with burden of proof. It also defines, or elaborates on, certain concepts commonly used in the creation of offences. 2 Section 8A is not included in the NSW Act and Victorian Act.

20. It may be noted that s 410 was based on an identical provision in the NSW Crimes Act 1900. There is no doubt that the NSW provision is repealed but not because of any inconsistency with the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The provision was expressly repealed in 1995 by the Evidence (Consequential and Other Provisions) Act 1995 (NSW).

66

Uniform Evidence Law

s9

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

Cth Act: 9

Effect of Act on other laws

(1) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act does not affect an Australian law so far as the law relates to a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding. (2) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act does not affect a law of a State or Territory so far as the law relates to: (a) admission or use of evidence of reasons for a decision of a member of a jury, or of the deliberations of a member of a jury in relation to such a decision, in a proceeding by way of appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of the relevant court; or (b) bail; or (c) any requirement for admission of evidence in support of an alibi. (3) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act does not affect a law of a State or Territory so far as the law provides for: (a) the operation of a legal or evidential presumption (except so far as this Act is, expressly or by necessary intendment, inconsistent with the presumption); or (b) the admissibility of a document to depend on whether stamp duty has been paid; or (c) a requirement that notice must be given before evidence may be adduced; or (d) evidentiary effect to be given to a certificate or other document issued under that or any other law of the State or Territory; or (e) proof of title to property (other than by a means provided for by this Act that is applicable to proof of title to property). [Subs (3) am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 32] [S 9 am Act 113 of 2015]

NSW Act: 9

Application of common law and equity

(1) This Act does not affect the operation of a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to evidence in a proceeding to which this Act applies, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), this Act does not affect the operation of such a principle or rule so far as it relates to any of the following: (a) admission or use of evidence of reasons for a decision of a member of a jury, or of the deliberations of a member of a jury in relation to such a decision, in a proceeding by way of appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of a court, (b) the operation of a legal or evidential presumption that is not inconsistent with this Act, (c) a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

67

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s9

Note: This section differs from section 9 of the Commonwealth Act. That section preserves the written and unwritten laws of States and Territories in relation to various matters.

Vic Act: 9

Application of common law and equity

(1) This Act does not affect the operation of a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to evidence in a proceeding to which this Act applies, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), this Act does not affect the operation of such a principle or rule so far as it relates to any of the following— (a) admission or use of evidence of reasons for a decision of a member of a jury, or of the deliberations of a member of a jury in relation to such a decision, in a proceeding by way of appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of a court; (b) the operation of a legal or evidential presumption that is not inconsistent with this Act; (c) a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding. Note: This section differs from section 9 of the Commonwealth Act. That section preserves the written and unwritten laws of States and Territories in relation to various matters.

ACT Act: 9

Application of common law and equity

(1) This Act does not affect the operation of a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to evidence in a proceeding to which this Act applies, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), this Act does not affect the operation of a principle or rule mentioned in subsection (1) so far as it relates to any of the following: (a) admission or use of evidence of reasons for a decision of a member of a jury, or of the deliberations of a member of a jury in relation to the decision, in a proceeding by way of appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of a court; (b) the operation of a legal or evidential presumption that is not inconsistent with this Act; (c) a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding. Note: This section differs from the Commonwealth Act, s 9. That section preserves the written and unwritten laws of States and Territories in relation to certain matters.

68

Uniform Evidence Law

s9

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.9.90]

NT Act: 9

Application of common law and equity

(1) This Act does not affect the operation of a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to evidence in a proceeding to which this Act applies, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), this Act does not affect the operation of such a principle or rule so far as it relates to any of the following: (a) admission or use of evidence of reasons for a decision of a member of a jury, or of the deliberations of a member of a jury in relation to such a decision, in a proceeding by way of appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of a court; (b) the operation of a legal or evidential presumption that is not inconsistent with this Act; (c) a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence or procedure in an interlocutory proceeding. Note for section 9: This section differs from section 9 of the Commonwealth Act. That section preserves the written and unwritten laws of States and Territories in relation to various matters.

[EA.9.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 15.

[EA.9.60]

General comments

The Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian provisions make it clear that the Act does not affect existing law relating to a number of matters (including admission of jury deliberations on appeal, presumptions which are not inconsistent with the Act and a court’s power to dispense with the rules of evidence and procedure in interlocutory proceedings). The Commonwealth provision extends this to other matters in s 9(3).

[EA.9.90]

Application of common law and equity [NSW, Vic, ACT, NT Acts]

The effect of s 9(1) in the NSW and Victorian Acts is to retain the common law of evidence, “except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment”. It is suggested that the Act does provide otherwise in respect of the areas of competence and compellability of witnesses and admissibility of evidence (see [EA.8.60]). In those areas, the Act is intended to cover the field (to operate as a “code”) and any common law rules are abrogated (see [EA.Intro.120]). In other areas of evidence law, only common law rules of evidence which are inconsistent with provisions of the Act are not retained. Thus, for example, it may be assumed that the provisions of the Act do not over-ride “the underlying principle of the accusatorial and adversarial system that it is for the prosecution to put its case both fully and fairly before the jury, before the accused is called on to announce the course that will be followed at trial”.21 21. R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299; [2003] HCA 13 at [27]; see [EA.43.210] and [EA.106.60]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

69

[EA.9.120]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s9

In Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty; Harkins v Butcher [2002] NSWCA 237 at [15], Handley JA (Beazley and Hodgson JJA agreeing) considered that this provision preserved the common law rule relating to an admission by a predecessor in title. As Handley JA observed, the Evidence Act 1995 makes no explicit provision for the reception of such admissions. However, his conclusion appears to be wrong. Part 3.4 of the Act deals with the admissibility of admissions and it is clear that it was intended to cover the field. The fact that there is no provision for admissions by a predecessor in title indicates that it was intended to abolish that hearsay exception. The absence of such an exception in Pt 3.4 has the effect that the evidence is rendered inadmissible by s 59 unless, of course, some other hearsay exception applies. This was certainly the intention of the ALRC (see [EA.81.180]). As regards the content of the principles or rules of common law or equity, Basten JA has observed: On one view, s 9 may be understood to refer to the “common law or equity” as understood at the time of its enactment. However, it does not seek to prevent developments in such general law principles, which developments will not be limited to a prospective operation. Nor should the section be understood as purporting to freeze the general law in relation to evidence as at the date of its commencement of operation. Rather, common law principles may continue to develop, subject to the qualification that a development which is inconsistent with the express terms of the Evidence Act, or its necessary intendment, will not have effect “in a proceeding to which [the Evidence Act] applies”.22

[EA.9.120]

Deliberations of a jury (s 9(2)(a))

It is a well established common law rule that the deliberations of a jury must remain secret so that a court may only receive evidence of matters which are regarded as “extrinsic” to the jury’s deliberations.23 However, the High Court has held that there are qualifications to this exclusionary rule.24

[EA.9.150]

Presumptions

Legal and evidential presumptions created by other statutes, or arising under the common law, continue in force except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Act. An example of a common law presumption is the presumption of death where a person has been missing for at least seven years. This Act itself contains a number of presumptions relating to such matters as official records, attestation of documents and various forms of communication (see ss 146 – 163).

[EA.9.180]

Interlocutory proceedings

The term “interlocutory proceedings” is discussed at [EA.75.60]. This provision does not create an independent statutory basis for dispensing with the operation of the rules of evidence. Rather, it recognises, so as not to affect, any rule of common law or in equity in relation to evidence in a proceeding insofar as it 22. Meteyard v Love (2005) 65 NSWLR 36; [2005] NSWCA 444 at [118]. 23. R v Rinaldi (1993) 30 NSWLR 605 at 613; R v Laws (2000) 114 A Crim R 70 at 75; R v K (2003) 59 NSWLR 431; 144 A Crim R 468; [2003] NSWCCA 406; see also R v Mirza [2004] 2 WLR 201. 24. Smith v Western Australia (2014) 88 ALJR 384; [2014] HCA 3.

70

Uniform Evidence Law

s 10

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.9.180]

relates to a court’s power to dispense with the operation of a rule of evidence in an interlocutory proceeding.25 The view has been expressed that s 9(2)(c) in the NSW and Victorian Acts (which replicates s 9(1) in the Commonwealth Act): does no more than permit in interlocutory proceedings the admission of evidence which the Evidence Act says is not admissible: it does not overcome provisions of the Evidence Act which actually prohibit the tendering of certain evidence, as is the case with evidence affected by client legal privilege.26

However, no explanation was given for this distinction and it is not apparent from the words of the provision.

Cth Act: 10

Parliamentary privilege preserved

(1) This Act does not affect the law relating to the privileges of any Australian Parliament or any House of any Australian Parliament. (2) In particular, subsection 15(2) does not affect, and is in addition to, the law relating to such privileges. NSW Act: 10

Parliamentary privilege preserved

(1) This Act does not affect the law relating to the privileges of any Australian Parliament or any House of any Australian Parliament. (2) In particular, section 15(2) does not affect, and is in addition to, the law relating to such privileges. Vic Act: 10

Parliamentary privilege preserved

(1) This Act does not affect the law relating to the privileges of any Australian Parliament or any House of any Australian Parliament. (2) In particular, section 15(2) does not affect, and is in addition to, the law relating to such privileges. ACT Act: 10

Parliamentary privilege preserved

(1) This Act does not affect the law relating to the privileges of any Australian Parliament or any house of any Australian Parliament. (2) In particular, section 15(2) (Compellability—Sovereign and others) does not affect, and is in addition to, the law relating to those privileges.

25. International FinanceTrust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission [2008] NSWCA 291, Allsop P at [13] (Beazley JA agreeing at [56]). 26. Hodgson JA in R v P (2001) 53 NSWLR 664; [2001] NSWCA 473 at [40]. Hodgson JA added that “in any event, there is no principle or rule of common law or equity that gives a court power in an interlocutory proceeding to dispense with the rules protecting legal professional privilege”. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

71

[EA.10.30]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s 10

NT Act: 10

Parliamentary privilege preserved

(1) This Act does not affect the law relating to the privileges of any Australian Parliament or any House of any Australian Parliament. (2) In particular, section 15(2) does not affect, and is in addition to, the law relating to such privileges.

[EA.10.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 16.

[EA.10.60]

General comments

Under parliamentary privilege, members of Parliament cannot, without the permission of Parliament, be compelled to testify regarding what happened in the Parliament.27 Further, the courts cannot inquire into the truth of what has been said in Parliament or into the motives of what was said.28 However, Hansard may be tendered to prove what was said in the course of a debate.29 It has been held that one consequence of parliamentary privilege is that Hansard reports of statements made to Parliament can only be tendered for the purpose of establishing that those words were said to Parliament and may not be used to prove the truth of anything stated in them for the purpose of determining the issues before a court.30

Cth Act: 11

General powers of a court

(1) The power of a court to control the conduct of a proceeding is not affected by this Act, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) In particular, the powers of a court with respect to abuse of process in a proceeding are not affected.

27. See Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 36-37 per Gibbs CJ. 28. R v Turnbull [1958] Tas SR 89; Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 287; Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369; Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1988) 19 FCR 223; Stewart v Ronalds [2009] NSWCA 277. See also Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 16: Rowley v O’Chee (2000) 1 Qd R 207; R v Theophanous (2003) 141 A Crim R 2; [2003] VSCA 78; Sportsbet Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 3) [2009] FCA 1283; Re OPEL Networks Pty Ltd (in liq) [2010] NSWSC 142. 29. See Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369; R v Jackson (1987) 8 NSWLR 116. 30. Mees v Roads Corp (2003) 128 FCR 418; [2003] FCA 306 at [86] per Gray J.

72

Uniform Evidence Law

s 11

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.11.60]

NSW Act: 11

General powers of a court

(1) The power of a court to control the conduct of a proceeding is not affected by this Act, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) In particular, the powers of a court with respect to abuse of process in a proceeding are not affected. Vic Act: 11

General powers of a court

(1) The power of a court to control the conduct of a proceeding is not affected by this Act, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) In particular, the powers of a court with respect to abuse of process in a proceeding are not affected. ACT Act: 11

General powers of a court

(1) The power of a court to control the conduct of a proceeding is not affected by this Act, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) In particular, the powers of a court in relation to abuse of process in a proceeding are not affected. NT Act: 11

General powers of a court

(1) The power of a court to control the conduct of a proceeding is not affected by this Act, except so far as this Act provides otherwise expressly or by necessary intendment. (2) In particular, the powers of a court with respect to abuse of process in a proceeding are not affected.

[EA.11.30]

ALRC References

ALRC 38, s 17.

[EA.11.60]

Powers of a court

The general powers of a court may be inherent or derived from legislation. The Federal Court, for example, has the incidental power to supervise its own proceedings31 and reg 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules provides that the “Court may make any order that the Court considers appropriate in the interests of

31. See Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486 at 498-499, 501-502). © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

73

[EA.11.90]

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

s 11

justice”. However, this does not provide any basis for applying evidentiary rules which are inconsistent with other provisions of the Act.32

[EA.11.90]

Abuse of process

As the majority of the High Court stated in Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 380, the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to stay its proceedings on grounds of abuse of process “extends to all those categories of cases in which the processes and procedures of the court, which exist to administer justice with fairness and impartiality, may be converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness”.33 The jurisdiction has been considered in several High Court decisions.34 In the NSW Court of Appeal case of Van Der Lee v New South Wales [2002] NSWCA 286, it was held that the powers of a court with respect to abuse of process include its powers to receive evidence and may over-ride privilege. Hodgson JA (with whom Mason P and Santow JA agreed) held (at [62]): I think s 11(2) does have the effect that, when evidence is tendered that could be evidence of an abuse of process, albeit evidence of without prejudice settlement negotiations, the court may receive that evidence on the voir dire; and then, if that evidence does either by itself or in combination with other evidence establish an abuse of process, the court may rule the evidence admissible and make appropriate orders to deal with that abuse of process. In my opinion, the powers of a court with respect to abuse of process include its powers to receive evidence, and in my opinion the authorities relied on by the claimants show that, at common law, communications evidencing abuse of process will not be protected by without prejudice privilege. I do not think that s 131 provides otherwise, either expressly or by necessary intendment, particularly if s 132(2)(k) does not apply in cases of abuse of process.

It may be noted that, in ALRC 102, it was stated at para 2.86 that “[t]he last sentence of the above quotation supports the view that the test used in s 11(1) is to be read by implication into s 11(2)”. It appears to have been accepted that s 11(2) does not provide an absolute rule but, rather, the test used in s 11(1) should be read by implication into s 11(2). See also [EA.125.120] and [EA.131.600]. An attempt was made in Georgeski v Owners Corp SP49833 [2004] NSWSC 945 to extend these principles, beyond applications to stay or dismiss proceedings as an abuse of process, to proof of improper or collateral purpose as something to be taken into account as a discretionary matter in an 32. See Lane v Jurd (No 2) (1995) 40 NSWLR 708 at 709; R v Too (unreported, NSW SC, Badgery-Parker J, 26 July 1996); R v Richards (2001) 123 A Crim R 14 at [40] per Grove J; Hague v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2008] NSWSC 253 at [20] per Fullerton J. There is no inconsistency between a power to recall a witness and the terms of s 46 (which permits recall in a particular situation): Doyle v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 4 (Bathurst CJ stated at [311]: “It does not seem to me that the conferral of a power to recall witnesses in particular circumstances necessarily implies that there is no power in other circumstances to do so. If the power of the court were to be limited in that fashion, it would be expected that it would be clearly stated”). 33. (1993) 177 CLR 380 at 392-393 per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ. Various examples of abuse of process were given at 393. 34. Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75; Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 380; Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237; Moti v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 456.

74

Uniform Evidence Law

s 11

Part 1.2 - Application of this Act

[EA.11.90]

eventual adjudication on the merits. Barrett J rejected the application of this provision in such circumstances, holding at [7] that “control by the court of ‘the conduct of a proceeding’ … is not apt to describe the process of allowing a proceeding to continue to its natural conclusion in an uninterrupted way”. In ALRC 102, consideration was given to the possible extension of s 11(2) to a general obligation to ensure a fair trial. However, it was stated at para 2.89: [T]he Commissions remain of the view that the obligation to ensure a fair trial is adequately enshrined in the common law and that the inclusion of such an obligation in the uniform Evidence Acts would be redundant and potentially counterproductive. Hence, the Commissions do not consider that an amendment to s 11(2) to ensure a fair trial is necessary.

Nevertheless, a question remains as to the effect of s 11(2). In Haddara v The Queen [2014] VSCA 100, Redlich and Weinberg JJA (Priest JA dissenting) held that the common law discretion to exclude any evidence, whether confessional or real, on the ground that to receive it would be unfair to a criminal defendant (in the sense that the trial would be unfair) continues to apply in UEL jurisdictions, on the basis that it is not caught by the operation of s 56(1). That interpretation of s 56(1) may be doubted (see general discussion at [EA.Intro.120]) but it is likely that the “powers of a court with respect to abuse of process in a proceeding” referred to in this provision would extend to exclusion of evidence on the basis that “it would be unfair to a defendant to use the evidence”. Thus, the High Court has repeatedly held that the inherent jurisdiction of courts extends to a power to stay proceedings in order “to prevent an abuse of process or the prosecution of a criminal proceeding ... which will result in a trial which is unfair”.35 Further, the High Court has emphasised the “discretion” to exclude evidence to ensure “the fairness of the trial”.36 Even if s 11(2) does not provide an absolute rule, and the test used in s 11(1) should be read by implication into s 11(2)), it should be concluded that this Act does not affect either “expressly or by necessary intendment” a court’s power to avoid an unfair trial for a criminal defendant.

35. Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 95–6. See also Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57 at [7]. 36. R v Swaffıed; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159 at 192. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

75

CHAPTER 2 – ADDUCING EVIDENCE Cth Act:

INTRODUCTORY NOTE Outline of this Chapter This Chapter is about ways in which evidence is adduced. Part 2.1 is about adducing evidence from witnesses. Part 2.2 is about adducing documentary evidence. Part 2.3 is about adducing other forms of evidence.

NSW Act: Introductory note:

Outline of this Chapter This Chapter is about ways in which evidence is adduced. Part 2.1 is about adducing evidence from witnesses. Part 2.2 is about adducing documentary evidence. Part 2.3 is about adducing other forms of evidence.

Vic Act: Note:

Outline of this Chapter This Chapter is about ways in which evidence is adduced. Part 2.1 is about adducing evidence from witnesses. Part 2.2 is about adducing documentary evidence. Part 2.3 is about adducing other forms of evidence.

ACT Act: Note: This chapter • Pt 2.1 is • Pt 2.2 is • Pt 2.3 is

is about ways in which evidence is given and presented. about evidence from witnesses. about documentary evidence. about other forms of evidence.

NT Act: Introductory note Outline of this Chapter This Chapter is about ways in which evidence is adduced. Part 2.1 is about adducing evidence from witnesses. Part 2.2 is about adducing documentary evidence. Part 2.3 is about adducing other forms of evidence.

76

Uniform Evidence Law

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30]

Part 2.1 – Witnesses [EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30]

General comments

This Part is headed “Witnesses” and the Introductory Note to Ch 2 states that this Part “is about adducing evidence from witnesses”. The term “witness” is not defined in the Dictionary to the Act, other than to make clear that it can include a party to the proceedings (see cl 7 of Pt 2 of the Dictionary). Nevertheless, it is apparent that evidence from a “witness” is to be contrasted with “documentary evidence” (dealt with in Pt 2.2) and “other forms of evidence” (dealt with by Pt 2.3). Traditionally, evidence is adduced from a witness orally in court. Such evidence is commonly referred to as “testimony”. However, in civil proceedings it is very common for at least some of the evidence from a “witness” to be received in written form, either in an affidavit or another form of written statement. The question arises whether such affidavit evidence (or other written statement) is subject to the provisions in Pt 2.1. In Aneve Pty Ltd v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2005] NSWCA 441 the NSW Court of Appeal upheld a decision to reject affidavit evidence and require the declarant to give evidence orally. Hodgson JA (Santow JA and Bryson JA agreeing) stated at [70]–[71]: The use of affidavits for the purpose of evidence is not dealt with by the Evidence Act 1995. It is permissible because of various qualifications to the operation of the Act, particularly s 52, which is in the following terms: 52 Adducing of other evidence not affected This Act (other than this Part) does not affect the operation of any Australian law or rule of practice so far as it permits evidence to be adduced in a way other than by witnesses giving evidence or documents being tendered in evidence. The Evidence Act, like the common law, requires oral evidence in chief generally to be given in response to non-leading questions; and the desirability of this is particularly strong in the case of conversations where considerations of the type referred to in Watson v Foxman apply. It was open to the primary judge to require evidence of the vital conversations to be given orally, in response to non-leading questions, and to reject the account of those conversations given in the affidavits.

Notwithstanding the reference to UEL provisions with respect to non-leading questions (see s 37 in Pt 2.1), it appears to have been held that affidavit evidence is to be regarded as falling within the scope of Pt 2.3, rather than Pt 2.1 or Pt 2.2, with the consequence that the rules in respect of the adducing of such evidence are to be found not in the UEL but the common law, court rules and other applicable “Australian law or rule of practice”. The proposition that affidavit evidence may not fall within the scope of Pt 2.2 (documentary evidence) may be accepted because, technically, evidence by affidavit is given by being “read”.1 The document is not (at least usually) “tendered in evidence”.2 However, more problematic is the proposition that affidavit evidence does not fall within the scope of Pt 2.1. After all, the evidence is from a “witness” and it is adduced in 1. See Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation (No 15) [2013] FCA 1124 at [10]. 2. However, see Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation (No 15) [2013] FCA 1124 at [14]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

77

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

court. Neither the heading of Pt 2.1 nor the Introductory Note to Ch 2 refer to “oral evidence from witnesses” or limit the application of the Part to “oral testimony”. It may be accepted that difficulties could arise in applying some of the provisions in Pt 2.1 to affidavit evidence or other evidence from a witness to be received in written form. The competence requirement for unsworn evidence that the court tell the witness certain things (s 13(5)) may present difficulties. There will be no “questioning” which the court can control (s 26). It is not necessarily the same as evidence given “in narrative form” (s 29(3)). However, these difficulties are not insuperable. The provisions of Pt 2.1 are not expressed in a way which clearly excludes affidavit or similar evidence from the application of the Part. Further, there are some Divisions of Pt 2.1 which were likely to have been intended to apply to affidavit or similar evidence. An example is Div 1, dealing with the “competence and compellability of witnesses”. The Division has made significant changes from the common law with respect to the determination of competence and it is implausible that those changes would have no application to a particular witness simply because the evidence of the witness is adduced in affidavit form rather than in oral testimony. It is equally implausible that the rules in Pt 2.1 only kick in when the witness is subject to cross-examination in the courtroom. Reference should also be made to s 37(3), which expressly refers to the possibility of a court “exercising power under rules of court to allow a written statement or report to be tendered or treated as evidence in chief of its maker”, thereby expressly incorporating written statements within the operational scope of Pt 2.1. Further, it should be noted that express provision is made for the competency provision in s 13 to apply to out-of-court hearsay representations (s 61). It was the clear intention that the competency provision in s 13 would apply generally in respect of any evidence of what a person said – whether as a “witness” or where evidence of what the person said is to be admitted into evidence. Finally, it should be noted that is well established that s 128, which “applies if a witness objects to giving particular evidence” (s 128(1)), has application where affidavit evidence is sought to be read in court (see [EA.128.330]). Nevertheless, in Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation (No 15) [2013] FCA 1124, Perram J stated at [5]–[7]: To begin with the Evidence Act does not directly seek to regulate the giving of affidavit evidence. It contemplates three kinds of evidence. The first is the testimonial evidence given by witnesses in court. This is regulated by Part 2.1. Although Part 2.1 does not, in terms, say that it only applies to evidence given by witnesses in court, that is nevertheless a necessary implication from its terms. The part deals with a number of topics which make no sense outside of a curial context (see, eg, those dealing with the compellability of witnesses (ss 12, 14-19)); or which are unworkable unless they take place in a courtroom, such as the provisions dealing with the competence of witnesses (see, eg, s 13(5) which requires the court to tell the witness certain matters); or which are meaningless outside a courtroom such as provisions authorising the court to make orders (s 26); or which simply assume that the evidence is given in a courtroom such as Division 3 (“General rules about giving evidence”), Division 4 (“Examination in chief and re-examination”) and Division 5 (“Cross-examination”). … The second kind of evidence is the admission of documents which is dealt with in Part 2.2 of the Evidence Act. Part 2.3 deals with the third category of evidence which, loosely speaking, is 78

Uniform Evidence Law

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.30]

everything else. It is headed “Other Evidence”. Apart from regulating views (in ss 53, 54) Part 2.3 has no substantive content leaving the whole field to pre-existing law or practice.

It is suggested that some of these propositions are over-stated. Questions of compellability will simply not arise where a witness has agreed to provide an affidavit or other written statement to a party. A question of competence to give unsworn evidence will only arise where the person is not competent to give sworn evidence (s 13(5)), so the affidavit should not be received on that basis alone. Orders can be made by the court at the time when the attempt is made to adduce the affidavit evidence in court. Divisions 3 – 5 can be adapted to affidavit evidence.3 Further, Perram J acknowledged that there is conflicting authority. A number of judgments have held that an affidavit must comply with the requirements of s 21 (which requires that, in general, a witness must either take an oath or make an affirmation).4 In Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (2002) 121 FCR 82; [2002] FCA 934 at [26], Lindgren J held that s 21(1) (which is located in Pt 2.1) applies even if the evidence of a witness is adduced in the form of a written statement – the statement must be sworn or affirmed. Perram J stated at [15] that he “respectfully disagree[d]” with this analysis, observing that “it is more likely, I think, that the requirements for how statements or affidavits are to be prepared is governed by s 52 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, derivatively by the [Court] Rules”. Yet, it is likely that it was the intention behind s 21 that, whenever evidence from a witness is to be given in a proceeding, whether orally or in some other form, the witness should generally be required to have either taken an oath or made an affirmation.

DIVISION 1 – COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY OF WITNESSES

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.30]

Summary of this Division

This Division deals with the adducing of evidence from witnesses. Section 12 creates a presumption that all persons are competent to testify and may be compelled to do so. However, s 13 provides that certain persons lack the capacity to give sworn evidence although they may give unsworn evidence in certain circumstances. A witness may not be compellable to testify in certain circumstances. Special rules apply to Heads of State, parliamentarians, judges and jurors and, in criminal proceedings, defendants, their spouses, partners, parents and children.

3. See, for example, Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia [2005] FCA 50 at [180]. 4. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc v Goulimis [2008] FCA 1415, 253 ALR 76 at [3]; STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Bowen Basin Coal Group Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1002; Micar Group Pty Ltd v Insul-Trade LLC [2010] NSWSC 1391 at [19]–[27] (although another statutory provision was held to permit receipt of the affidavit). See also Garning & Director-General, Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2012] FamCAFC 35 at [65]–[66]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

79

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.60]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.1Div.1.60]

s 12

Affidavits and written statements

In Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation (No 15) [2013] FCA 1124, Perram J stated at [5] that Pt 2.1, including Div 1, only applies to evidence given by witnesses in court. For discussion of this issue generally, see [EA.Ch 2.Part 2.1].

Cth Act: 12

Competence and compellability Except as otherwise provided by this Act: (a) every person is competent to give evidence; and (b) a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence.

NSW Act: 12

Competence and compellability Except as otherwise provided by this Act: (a) every person is competent to give evidence, and (b) a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence.

Vic Act: 12

Competence and compellability Except as otherwise provided by this Act— (a) every person is competent to give evidence; and (b) a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence.

ACT Act: 12

Competence and compellability Except as otherwise provided by this Act— (a) every person is competent to give evidence; and (b) a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence.

NT Act: 12

Competence and compellability Except as otherwise provided by this Act: (a) every person is competent to give evidence; and (b) a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence.

[EA.12.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 18, para 64; ALRC 26, vol 1, para 525. 80

Uniform Evidence Law

s 13

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.12.60]

[EA.12.60]

General comments

The effect of this provision is that, as a primary position in all proceedings, all witnesses are both competent to give evidence and compellable to give evidence. The succeeding provisions (ss 13 to 19) provide exceptions to that general proposition. The words “competent to give evidence about a fact” appear in s 12(b) because such a formulation allows a court to decide, in accordance with Pt 2.1, that a witness is competent to give evidence about some facts but not others. Exceptions to compellability are not found only in the UEL. Other statutory provisions may render a person non-compellable. For example, in NSW5, a complainant in sexual offence proceedings is not compellable to give evidence at a retrial where a recording of his or her evidence from earlier proceedings is available.6

Cth Act: 13

Competence: lack of capacity

(1) A person is not competent to give evidence about a fact if, for any reason (including a mental, intellectual or physical disability): (a) the person does not have the capacity to understand a question about the fact; or (b) the person does not have the capacity to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the fact; and that incapacity cannot be overcome. Note: See sections 30 and 31 for examples of assistance that may be provided to enable witnesses to overcome disabilities.

(2) A person who, because of subsection (1), is not competent to give evidence about a fact may be competent to give evidence about other facts. (3) A person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is not competent to give sworn evidence about the fact if the person does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence. (4) A person who is not competent to give sworn evidence about a fact may, subject to subsection (5), be competent to give unsworn evidence about the fact. (5) A person who, because of subsection (3), is not competent to give sworn evidence is competent to give unsworn evidence if the court has told the person: (a) that it is important to tell the truth; and (b) that he or she may be asked questions that he or she does not know, or cannot remember, the answer to, and that he or she should tell the court if this occurs; and

5. Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 306A – 306G. 6. See also Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), Pt 8.2. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

81

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

(c)

s 13

that he or she may be asked questions that suggest certain statements are true or untrue and that he or she should agree with the statements that he or she believes are true and should feel no pressure to agree with statements that he or she believes are untrue.

(6) It is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that a person is not incompetent because of this section. (7) Evidence that has been given by a witness does not become inadmissible merely because, before the witness finishes giving evidence, he or she dies or ceases to be competent to give evidence. (8) For the purpose of determining a question arising under this section, the court may inform itself as it thinks fit, including by obtaining information from a person who has relevant specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience. [S 13 subst Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 3]

NSW Act: 13

Competence: lack of capacity

(1) A person is not competent to give evidence about a fact if, for any reason (including a mental, intellectual or physical disability): (a) the person does not have the capacity to understand a question about the fact, or (b) the person does not have the capacity to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the fact, and that incapacity cannot be overcome. Note: See sections 30 and 31 for examples of assistance that may be provided to enable witnesses to overcome disabilities.

(2) A person who, because of subsection (1), is not competent to give evidence about a fact may be competent to give evidence about other facts. (3) A person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is not competent to give sworn evidence about the fact if the person does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence. (4) A person who is not competent to give sworn evidence about a fact may, subject to subsection (5), be competent to give unsworn evidence about the fact. (5) A person who, because of subsection (3), is not competent to give sworn evidence is competent to give unsworn evidence if the court has told the person: (a) that it is important to tell the truth, and (b) that he or she may be asked questions that he or she does not know, or cannot remember, the answer to, and that he or she should tell the court if this occurs, and (c) that he or she may be asked questions that suggest certain statements are true or untrue and that he or she should agree with the statements that he or she believes are true and should feel no pressure to agree with statements that he or she believes are untrue. 82

Uniform Evidence Law

s 13

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

(6) It is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that a person is not incompetent because of this section. (7) Evidence that has been given by a witness does not become inadmissible merely because, before the witness finishes giving evidence, he or she dies or ceases to be competent to give evidence. (8) For the purpose of determining a question arising under this section, the court may inform itself as it thinks fit, including by obtaining information from a person who has relevant specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience. [S 13 subst Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[3]]

Vic Act: 13

Competence—lack of capacity

(1) A person is not competent to give evidence about a fact if, for any reason (including a mental, intellectual or physical disability)— (a) the person does not have the capacity to understand a question about the fact; or (b) the person does not have the capacity to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the fact— and that incapacity cannot be overcome. Note: See sections 30 and 31 for examples of assistance that may be provided to enable witnesses to overcome disabilities.

(2) A person who, because of subsection (1), is not competent to give evidence about a fact may be competent to give evidence about other facts. (3) A person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is not competent to give sworn evidence about the fact if the person does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence. (4) A person who is not competent to give sworn evidence about a fact may, subject to subsection (5), be competent to give unsworn evidence about the fact. (5) A person who, because of subsection (3), is not competent to give sworn evidence is competent to give unsworn evidence if the court has told the person— (a) that it is important to tell the truth; and (b) that he or she may be asked questions that he or she does not know, or cannot remember, the answer to, and that he or she should tell the court if this occurs; and (c) that he or she may be asked questions that suggest certain statements are true or untrue and that he or she should agree with the statements that he or she believes are true and should feel no pressure to agree with statements that he or she believes are untrue. (6) It is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that a person is not incompetent because of this section. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

83

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 13

(7) Evidence that has been given by a witness does not become inadmissible merely because, before the witness finishes giving evidence, he or she dies or ceases to be competent to give evidence. (8) For the purpose of determining a question arising under this section, the court may inform itself as it thinks fit, including by obtaining information from a person who has relevant specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience. ACT Act: 13

Competence—lack of capacity

(1) A person is not competent to give evidence about a fact if, for any reason (including a mental, intellectual or physical disability)— (a) the person does not have the capacity to understand a question about the fact; or (b) the person does not have the capacity to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the fact; and that incapacity cannot be overcome. Note: See s 30 and s 31 for examples of assistance that may be provided to enable witnesses to overcome disabilities.

(2) A person who, because of subsection (1), is not competent to give evidence about a fact may be competent to give evidence about other facts. (3) A person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is not competent to give sworn evidence about the fact if the person does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, the person is under an obligation to give truthful evidence. (4) A person who is not competent to give sworn evidence about a fact may, subject to subsection (5), be competent to give unsworn evidence about the fact. (5) A person who, because of subsection (3), is not competent to give sworn evidence is competent to give unsworn evidence if the court has told the person that— (a) it is important to tell the truth; and (b) the person may be asked questions that the person does not know, or cannot remember, the answer to, and that the person should tell the court if this happens; and (c) the person may be asked questions that suggest certain statements are true or untrue and that the person should agree with the statements that the person believes are true and should feel no pressure to agree with statements that the person believes are untrue. (6) It is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that a person is not incompetent because of this section. (7) Evidence that has been given by a witness does not become inadmissible only because, before the witness finishes giving evidence, the witness dies or ceases to be competent to give evidence. 84

Uniform Evidence Law

s 13

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

(8) For the purpose of deciding a question arising under this section, the court may inform itself as it thinks fit, including by obtaining information from a person who has relevant specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience. NT Act: 13 Competence — lack of capacity (1) A person is not competent to give evidence about a fact if, for any reason (including a mental, intellectual or physical disability): (a) the person does not have the capacity to understand a question about the fact; or (b) the person does not have the capacity to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the fact; and that incapacity cannot be overcome. Note for subsection (1): See sections 30 and 31 for examples of assistance that may be provided to enable witnesses to overcome disabilities.

(2) A person who, because of subsection (1), is not competent to give evidence about a fact may be competent to give evidence about other facts. (3) A person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is not competent to give evidence on oath about the fact if the person does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence. (4) A person who is not competent to give evidence on oath about a fact may, subject to subsection (5), be competent to give evidence about the fact otherwise than on oath. (5) A person who, because of subsection (3), is not competent to give evidence on oath is competent to give evidence otherwise than on oath if the court has told the person: (a) that it is important to tell the truth; and (b) that he or she may be asked questions that he or she does not know, or cannot remember, the answer to, and that he or she should tell the court if this occurs; and (c) that he or she may be asked questions that suggest certain statements are true or untrue and that he or she should agree with the statements that he or she believes are true and should feel no pressure to agree with statements that he or she believes are untrue. (6) It is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that a person is not incompetent because of this section. (7) Evidence that has been given by a witness does not become inadmissible merely because, before the witness finishes giving evidence, he or she dies or ceases to be competent to give evidence. (8) For the purpose of determining a question arising under this section, the court may inform itself as it thinks fit, including by obtaining information from a person who has relevant specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

85

[EA.13.30]

[EA.13.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 13

ALRC references

ALRC 102, paras 4.3–4.89; ALRC 38, s 19, paras 64–65; ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 236–245, 521–524.

[EA.13.60]

“does not have the capacity to understand a question” (s 13(1)(a))

If a witness is incapable of understanding any questions (and that incapacity cannot be overcome in some way), he or she will not be permitted to testify at all. If a witness is incapable of understanding a question about a fact (and that incapacity cannot be overcome in some way), he or she will not be permitted to testify regarding that fact, but may be permitted to testify as to other facts (s 13(2)). The concept of “the capacity to understand a question” imports an ability to comprehend questions put to the witness.7 It requires only basic comprehension skills.8 A witness may be better able to understand a simple question than one involving complex concepts. Some incapacities may be overcome. As the Note to s 13(1) states, ss 30 and 31 provide examples of assistance that may be provided to enable witnesses to overcome disabilities. Thus, where the incapacity derives from lack of English, it may be easily overcome by use of an interpreter pursuant to s 30.9 Where the incapacity derives from a hearing disability, it may be overcome in an appropriate way pursuant to s 31. The same test of “capacity to understand a question” is adopted in s 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (UK) (see [EA.13.90] below) and authorities in respect of that provision will bear on this provision, notwithstanding some differences in the way that the test is expressed. For example, in R v MacPherson [2006] 1 Cr App R 30, the Court of Appeal observed at [27] that “a young child like the witness in this case, who can speak and understand basic English with strangers would be competent” and rejected submissions that a prospective witness must “be able to understand the difference between truth and falsehood” and understand the “status” of a witness.

[EA.13.90]

“does not have the capacity to give an answer that can be understood” (s 13(1)(b))

If a witness is incapable of giving an answer that can be understood to any questions, he or she will not be permitted to testify at all. If a witness is incapable of giving an answer that can be understood to a question about a fact, he or she will not be permitted to testify regarding that fact, but may be permitted to testify as to other facts (s 13(2)). For example, a young child may be able to give an answer that can be understood to simple factual questions but not questions which require the drawing of inferences. Prior to amendments to this provision following on ALRC 102, the applicable test was expressed in terms of capacity “to give a rational reply” to a question about 7. See the discussion in ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 239, 242. 8. See ALRC 102 at para 4.49. 9. Where it cannot easily be overcome, s 14 may apply.

86

Uniform Evidence Law

s 13

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.13.90]

a fact. That capacity implied an ability to be appropriately informative, relevant and perspicuous in response to questions.10 The new test requires less. An answer can be “understood” even if it provides little information and appears to have no rational connection to the question. The Explanatory Memoranda of both the Commonwealth amending Act and the Victorian 2008 Act state: The purpose of the revised test of general competence is to enhance participation of witnesses and to ensure that relevant information is before the court.

The current formulation derives from s 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (UK).11 That section provides that in a criminal proceeding “all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence” unless it appears to the court that the person is “not a person who is able to (a) understand questions put to him as a witness, and (b) to give answers to them which can be understood”. In ALRC 102, reference was made to authority on the English provision (at paras 4.53–4.56, paragraph numbers and footnotes deleted): [I]t has been applied in two separate reported cases, both concerning the sexual assault of elderly women suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. In those cases the test in s 53 was applied in the context of the trial judge’s consideration of the competence of the complainant as a witness when dealing with the issue of the admissibility of video-taped evidence under ss 23 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 ((UK)) where the witness was otherwise unfit to attend trial to give evidence. In the more recent of the two cases, Sed v The Queen, the Court of Appeal formed the view, as did the trial judge, that the complainant was a competent witness. In particular, the video of her showed: That she did have some appreciation of why she was being questioned … Whilst she did not always answer the question put to her and sometimes rambled off into other occurrences and places involving other people, her reference to such sexual assault by a man was a strong theme in her discourse with the officers. Sometimes her answers were hard to understand or bore little relation to the question asked, but at the end of the interview, the abiding picture was of a woman whose account and responses to questions were somewhat patchy, but who was nevertheless complaining repeatedly of a particular recent sexual assault by a man …

The Court of Appeal went on to observe it is for the judge to determine the question of competence: bearing always in mind that, if, on critical matters, the witness can be seen and heard to be intelligible, it is for the jury and no-one else to determine reliability and general cogency.

The Court of Appeal also noted that, “[t]he new s 53 test of ‘competence’ is … concerned at its highest with the degree of mutual comprehension of those questioning and of the person being questioned.” It is apparent that an answer can be “understood” even if it does not “answer the question” asked, appears to “ramble off”, and provides little relevant information. It is enough that it is “intelligible”. In ALRC 102, it was concluded at para 4.57: The Commissions favour a test of general competence substantially based on the English provision, which focuses on the ability of the witness to comprehend and communicate. Such a test is flexible, clear and unambiguous. It increases the possibility

10. See the discussion in ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 239, 242. 11. See ALRC 102 at para 4.52. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

87

[EA.13.90]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 13

that a witness’ evidence is heard, requiring mainly that they understand and answer simple questions and communicate what happened.

In Cox v New South Wales (2007) 71 NSWLR 225; [2007] NSWSC 471, Simpson J applied the former test, expressed in terms of capacity “to give a rational reply” to a question about a fact, to hold that a plaintiff who responded to questions about relevant events with the answer that he had no memory of those events was not capable of giving a rational reply to questions about those events (and thus was taken “not to be available to give evidence about a fact” because he was “not competent to give the evidence about the fact”). Justice Simpson stated at [16]: The “rational replies” that the plaintiff was able to give were not replies to questions about facts relevant to his claim, but were about facts relevant to his recollection. Once he replied that he had no recollection of the events, it had to be concluded that he was not capable of giving a rational reply to questions about those facts. That he was capable to giving rational replies to questions about his recollection is beside the point; the argument focused upon the wrong fact.

This analysis is doubtful. It is a rational reply to the question “what happened” to say “I dont remember”. Such an answer to any other questions about the events would also be a rational reply. The reply may provide no information about the events but it is an informative response. Furthermore, the witness may be able to give evidence relevant to the events even if he or she has no recollection of them – to treat the witness as “not competent to give evidence about the fact” simply because he or she has no recollection of it would be inappropriate.12 However, whatever the correctness or otherwise of the ruling by Simpson J in relation to the old test, it plainly has no bearing on the current formulation. The answer “I don’t remember” to the question “what happened” clearly demonstrates a capacity to give an answer that can be understood. In the English case of Director of Public Prosecutions v The Queen [2007] EWHC 1842 (Admin), Lord Justice Hughes considered a case where a severely handicapped witness was declared incompetent because she had no recollection of events and stated at [21]–[22]: This was not a case, on the Justices’ findings, of incompetence. The girl may have had her learning difficulties. Her evidence may have needed treating with some care in consequence, but the problem at trial was not capacity to understand or to give intelligible answers, it was loss of memory. Recollection is quite different from competence. Of course, absence of recollection may, in some cases, co-exist with absence of competence, but they do not necessarily run together. Persons who have no recollection for an event may be perfectly competent. A simple example is the witness who is knocked out in the course of whatever happened which founds the charges, and has absolutely no recollection of what occurred, but is otherwise fully functioning. This girl … could understand the questions and she could give intelligible answers. The problem was that her perfectly intelligible answer was, “I cannot remember”. She was not incompetent.

12. While the ruling made by Simpson J was perhaps understandable in the context of determining whether the plaintiff was not available to give evidence about the events (for the purpose of applying the hearsay exception in s 63), alternative approaches might have been to hold that the plaintiff was not available under cl 4(1)(f) in Pt 2 of the Dictionary or, alternatively, relevantly available but subject to a liberal interpretation of s 64(2).

88

Uniform Evidence Law

s 13

[EA.13.120]

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.13.180]

“… about a fact …” (s 13(1))

In ALRC 102, it was noted at para 4.70 that the test of general competence provides that if a witness lacks capacity to understand a question or to give an answer which can be understood to a question “about a fact” (and therefore is not competent to give evidence about that fact), nonetheless, subject to comprehending and communicating appropriately to a question about another fact, he or she will be competent to give evidence about that fact. The following passage from another ALRC report was referred to at para 4.72: This is particularly important for children who may have differing language skills, abilities to make inferences, conclusions or estimates or capacities to understand concepts such as time and special perspective. This approach to competency allows a young child to respond under oath to simple questions but not to questions beyond the child’s capacity that cannot be reframed in simpler terms.

Section 13(2) expressly recognises that a person who is not competent to give evidence about a fact may be competent to give evidence about other facts. The Explanatory Memorandum of the Commonwealth amending Act states: New subsection 13(2) provides that even if the general test of competence is not satisfied in relation to one fact, the witness may be competent to give evidence about other facts. For example, a young child may be able to reply to simple factual questions but not to questions which require inferences to be drawn.13

[EA.13.150]

“(including a mental, intellectual or physical disability)” (s 13(1))

In ALRC 102, it was stated at para 4.75: [C]ompetence provisions are typically viewed as relevant when assessing the capacity of children to give evidence, and the capacity of persons with an intellectual disability or cognitive impairment to give evidence. The specific reference to “physical disability” is made to ensure that the potential applicability of the competence requirements to witnesses with this kind of disability is not overlooked.

The Note to this provision draws attention to ss 30 and 31, which refer to assistance that may be provided to enable witnesses to overcome disabilities.

[EA.13.180]

“does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence” (s 13(3))

This provision is based on the original ALRC proposals in ALRC 38. It replaces the old common law test of competence based on understanding of “the nature and consequences of the oath”. The new test focuses on capacity to understand the duty to tell the truth. The ALRC stated that “the test concerns the witness’ ability to understand his obligation to speak ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’”.14 In RJ v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 174; [2010] NSWCCA 263, Campbell JA noted at [20] that the test “is that the person does 13. Para 13. Similar observations are made in the Explanatory Memorandum to the NSW amending Act and the Victorian Act. 14. See ALRC 26, vol 1, para 521. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

89

[EA.13.210]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 13

not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence” and then observed that “[m]any a lying witness, and many an unreliable witness, has the capacity to understand that he or she is under that sort of an obligation (and thus is competent to give sworn evidence), even though he or she in fact does not give truthful evidence”. “Sworn evidence”, in this context, includes evidence given by way of affirmation.15 The ALRC explained how the application of this test would operate in practice (at para 522): The practice would differ from the present in that it would not be necessary to explore the religious belief and knowledge of the witness. Otherwise it would be similar in that the judge or magistrate, for example, would question a young child about his schooling (if appropriate), his interests and test his ability to understand different types of questions, test whether he understands why he is giving evidence, what is expected of him and what will happen if he does not give accurate answers.

The High Court stated in R v GW [2016] HCA 6: “obligation” in s 13(3) is to be understood in its ordinary, grammatical meaning as the condition of being morally or legally bound – in this case, to give truthful evidence. A child may agree that he or she understands that he or she is to tell the truth without having any understanding of what it is to give evidence in a court proceeding, much less of the concept of being morally or legally bound to give truthful evidence.

In consequence, a child’s affirmative answer to the question “do you understand that today in giving evidence you have to only tell us the truth? You have to tell us things that really happened, you understand that?” is not to be understood as necessarily conveying that the child “had the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, she was under such an obligation” (at [26]). Many matters may be relevant, including the age of the child (at [31]), the answers given to such questions and whether the child has some understanding of swearing an oath on the Bible or making an affirmation (at [27]). The court must be satisfied that the witness “does not have” the relevant capacity. It is not sufficient to overcome the presumptions in ss 12 and 13(6) that the court is not satisfied that the witness does have that capacity: R v GW [2016] HCA 6 at [14], [28]. Only if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the witness does not have the relevant capacity will the witness not be competent to give sworn evidence about the fact. However, lack of competence to give sworn evidence will not prevent a witness from giving unsworn evidence if the requirements of s 13(5) are satisfied.

[EA.13.210]

Competence to give unsworn evidence (s 13(5))

The provision is designed to allow young children and others (for example, adults who have an intellectual disability) to testify even though they do not comprehend the concept of an “obligation to give truthful evidence”. Unsworn evidence (that is, evidence given without an oath or affirmation) is still evidence and is treated no differently from other evidence by the Act.16 Prior to amendments to this provision following on ALRC 102, the court was required to 15. See R v Muller (2013) 7 ACTLR 296; 273 FLR 215; [2013] ACTCA 15, Dowsett J at [39]. 16. Compare R v Wills (1985) 39 SASR 35; 16 A Crim R 247.

90

Uniform Evidence Law

s 13

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.13.210]

be satisfied that the person “understands the difference between the truth and a lie”.17 That is no longer required. All that is necessary is that the requirements of s 13(1) are satisfied and “the court has told the person” the various matters specified in s 13(5)(a), (b) and (c). If those requirements are satisfied, there is no discretionary power to refuse to allow the person to give unsworn evidence notwithstanding the use of the word “may” in s 13(4).18 The provision “requires only that the directions be given, and not that they be understood or even acknowledged”.19 Thus, while it is obviously desirable that the witness understand the directions and “it may be appropriate to ask questions in order to determine whether any further explanation is necessary”, it is clear that “testing of the potential witness’s understanding of the judge’s directions is not part of the process prescribed by s 13(5). No particular level of understanding is required as a condition of admissibility, always assuming that ss 13(1) and 13(3) have been satisfied”.20 Thus, it was held by the ACT Court of Appeal that, when a child responded “I don’t know” to the question “what do you understand by me telling you that it is important to tell the truth? What does that mean to you?”, that answer was “irrelevant” to the question of his competence to give unsworn evidence.21 It has been held that the identical provision to s 13(5)(a) as it now stands (s 13(2)(b) prior to the amendments following on ALRC 102) does not mandate some form of judicial instruction.22 It is enough that the court conveys the information that it is important to tell the truth and it is not necessary that “the authority of the court is brought to bear on the witness by means of an instruction”.23 The same reasoning would apply to the matters specified in s 13(2)(b). In ALRC 102, it was noted at para 4.45 that: it has been suggested that the following is a simple, convenient form of words: “Tell us all you can remember of what happened. Do not make anything up or leave anything out. This is very important”.

Failure to tell the person of the matters referred to in s 13(5) will mean that the statutory precondition to the reception of the evidence has not been satisfied and the evidence is not properly before the court.24 The appropriate conclusion is that 17. See R v RAG [2006] NSWCCA 343. 18. SH v The Queen (2012) 83 NSWLR 258; 222 A Crim R 43; [2012] NSWCCA 79 at [6]–[8]; R v Muller (2013) 7 ACTLR 296; 273 FLR 215; [2013] ACTCA 15 at [40]. 19. R v Muller (2013) 7 ACTLR 296; 273 FLR 215; [2013] ACTCA 15 at [41]. 20. R v Muller (2013) 7 ACTLR 296; 273 FLR 215; [2013] ACTCA 15, Dowsett J at [44]. See also Penfold J at [2]–[3]. 21. R v Muller (2013) 7 ACTLR 296; 273 FLR 215; [2013] ACTCA 15, Dowsett J (Penfold J and Nield AJ agreeing) at [46]. 22. R v Brooks (1998) 44 NSWLR 121; 102 A Crim R 367 (NSWCCA) per Grove J (at 126), Priestley JA agreeing (at 122), Sperling J dissenting (at 127). 23. See R v Brooks (1998) 44 NSWLR 121; 102 A Crim R 367 per Grove J (at 126F–G), rejecting the view of Sperling J (at 127C–D). 24. SH v The Queen (2012) 83 NSWLR 258; 222 A Crim R 43; [2012] NSWCCA 79 at [33]–[35]; MK v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 274 at [72]–[74]. See also R v Brooks (1998) 44 NSWLR 121; 102 A Crim R 367; R v Starrett (2002) 82 SASR 115; [2002] SASC 175; Lau v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 30; 58 A Crim R 390; R v BBR [2010] 1 Qd R 546; 195 A Crim R 330; [2009] QCA 178 at [19]–[42]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

91

[EA.13.240]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 13

the witness is not competent to give unsworn evidence because, it having been concluded that the witness did not have sufficient capacity to understand the obligation to tell the truth, the witness was not given the directions required by s 13(5).25 An interesting issue arises if a court permits a witness to give unsworn evidence pursuant to s 13(5) without first having ruled that the witness is incompetent to give sworn evidence by reason of s 13(3). The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal held in relation to the provision prior to the amendments following on ALRC 102 that, in this situation, the (unsworn) evidence of the witness was not admissible.26 The effect of s 12 is that all persons (including children) are presumed competent to give sworn evidence: see also s 13(6). Before permitting a person to give unsworn evidence under s 13(5) the court must first be satisfied that the person is not competent to give sworn evidence, that is, that the person “does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence”: s 13(3). Failure to be so satisfied will mean that one of the requirements for the giving of unsworn evidence has not been met. This position has been confirmed in respect of the Act as it stands following the amendments. In RJ v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 174; [2010] NSWCCA 263, Campbell JA (Latham J and Price J agreeing) followed the earlier line of authority and also emphasised at [40] that s 21 permits only one exception to the requirement that a witness in a proceeding must either take an oath or make an affirmation before giving evidence: That exception is if the person “gives unsworn evidence under section 13”. It is possible to give unsworn evidence “under section 13” only if two separate conditions are satisfied. The first is that the presumption of competency to give sworn evidence that arises from section 13(6) has been displaced, through a decision being made that the test for being not competent to give sworn evidence, set out in section 13(3) has been met. In other words, it is possible to give unsworn evidence “under section 13” only if there is material that the judge has considered, on the basis of which the judge has decided that the witness does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence, he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence. The second condition for giving unsworn evidence “under section 13” is that the judge has informed the witness of the matters in paras (a) (b) and (c) of section 13(5).

Since the trial judge in that case had not addressed the first of these conditions at all, the unsworn evidence contravened s 21 and was not legitimately before the jury (at [42]).

[EA.13.240]

“before the witness finishes giving evidence, he or she dies or ceases to be competent to give evidence” (s 13(7))

While the evidence that has been given by the witness does not become inadmissible “merely” because these circumstances arise, discretionary exclusion 25. SH v The Queen (2012) 83 NSWLR 258; 222 A Crim R 43; [2012] NSWCCA 79 at [35]. 26. R v Brooks (1998) 44 NSWLR 121; 102 A Crim R 367. In fact, this term was used only by Priestley JA. Grove J held that “the articulations” of the witness were “unavailable as an evidential resource” (at 125E, 126D) while Sperling J considered that the Evidence Act required evidence to be sworn unless the procedural requirements for giving unsworn evidence were met. See also R v JTB [2003] NSWCCA 295.

92

Uniform Evidence Law

s 13

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.13.300]

(under s 135 or 137) may be appropriate, particularly if an opposing party has had no substantial opportunity to cross-examine the witness.27

[EA.13.270]

Burden and standard of proof

Given s 13(6), the burden of proof will be on the party asserting that a witness is not competent.28 In accordance with s 142(1), that party will have to prove this “on the balance of probabilities”. The presumption applies to both competence to give evidence and competence to give sworn evidence. In either case, the presumption will be displaced where the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the contrary: R v GW [2016] HCA 6 at [14].

[EA.13.300]

Procedure

Section 13(8) allows the court to “inform itself as it thinks fit”. This permits the court to mould the procedure to determine questions of competence as it considers most appropriate, taking into account the fact that the provisions will be primarily applicable to young children. It could permit the questioning of a young child by a person with expertise in the area or who has trust of the child. The court may permit the parties to question the child, although it is doubtful whether counsel for a criminal defendant should question a child in a competency inquiry.29 An appropriate procedure is suggested at 6.3.2 of the Equality Before the Law Bench Book (Judicial Commission of NSW). There should be some testing of the understanding of the obligation to give truthful evidence by the use of simple and concrete terminology.30 This provision has been utilised to permit consideration of evidence given in other proceedings by the person.31 A judge might be able to satisfy himself or herself of the matters necessary to decide whether a presumption of competency under s 13 has been displaced by listening to a recording of a police interview with the child.32 In a jury trial, s 189 provides that the jury is not to be present during a “voir dire” to determine competence unless the court so orders: s 189(4). Various matters must be taken into account by the court in deciding whether to make such an order: s 189(5). It should be noted that the waiver provision (s 190) does not apply to this Division in the Act (Div 1 of Pt 2.1).33 27. Compare English authorities: R v Powell [2006] 1 Cr App R 31 at [33]–[34]; Director of Public Prosecutions v The Queen [2007] EWHC 1842 (Admin) at [15], [22]. 28. See RA v The Queen (2007) 175 A Crim R 221; [2007] NSWCCA 251, decided in respect of the identical provision (s 13(5)) prior to the amendments following on ALRC 102. McClellan CJ at CL stated at [11] that “[n]either the defence nor the prosecution carries an onus” but, since s 13(5) requires that it be “proved” that the witness is incompetent, it must logically follow that there is a “burden of proof” on the party submitting that a witness is incompetent. However, the terms of s 13(7) will impact on how this burden is met (see [EA.13.300]). 29. R v RAG [2006] NSWCCA 343 per Latham J (with whom McClellan CJ at CL and Johnson J agreed) at [46]). 30. MK v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 274 at [69]. 31. R v G [2002] ACTSC 85 at [10] per Crispin J. 32. RJ v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 174; [2010] NSWCCA 263 at [23]. 33. Compare R v JTB [2003] NSWCCA 295 at [9] and [24]–[36]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

93

[EA.13.330]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 13

This provision was amended following on ALRC 102 to expressly permit a court to obtain “information from a person who has relevant specialised knowledge based on the person’s training, study or experience”. It was stated at para 4.62: The Commissions considered that a court might benefit from the availability of expert reports in relation to other witnesses whose competence may be in doubt. For instance, the insights of an appropriately qualified expert skilled in determining intellectual functioning may assist the court to assess issues of competence concerning witnesses with an intellectual disability or cognitive impairment. In the absence of such evidence, the assessment would be made through judicial questioning and impressions ascertained in the artificial environs of the courtroom.

Similarly, the Explanatory Memorandum of the Commonwealth amending Act states (para 19): This provision is not intended to allow an expert to supplant the court’s role in determining a witness’s competence. Rather it is intended to emphasise that the court may have recourse to expert assistance (for example, to identify any alternative communication methods or support needs which could facilitate the giving of evidence by a person with a disability).

There must be “specialised knowledge” that is “relevant” and “based on the person’s training, study or experience”. These requirements correspond to the requirements of s 79 in respect of opinion evidence. However, in contrast with that provision, the court may obtain “information” as distinct from “opinion” and there is no explicit linkage between that information and the expert’s specialised knowledge (although the courts may well imply a requirement for such a linkage). There is no requirement that the information be obtained directly (that is, by the expert testifying in court).

[EA.13.330]

Jury directions

This provision does not mandate any directions to a jury where a witness who is not competent to give sworn evidence is permitted to give unsworn evidence. In that regard, it may be contrasted with, for example, s 9(4) of the South Australian Evidence Act 1929 which specifically requires that, if unsworn evidence is given in a criminal trial, the judge “must explain to the jury the reason the evidence is unsworn; … and may, and if a party so requests must, warn the jury of the need for caution in determining whether to accept the evidence and the weight to be given to it”. The High Court held in R v GW [2016] HCA 6 that, at least where unsworn evidence is given by a child, there is no requirement either under this Act or the common law for a direction to the jury: The Evidence Act does not treat unsworn evidence as of a kind that may be unreliable. Had a direction been requested under s 165(2), there was no requirement to warn the jury that [the child’s] evidence may be unreliable because it was unsworn. Nor was there a requirement under the common law to warn the jury of the need for caution in accepting [the child’s] evidence and in assessing the weight to be given to it because it was unsworn. Nor was there a requirement under common law, falling short of a warning of that kind, to direct the jury to take into account the differences between sworn and unsworn evidence in assessing the reliability of [the child’s] evidence.

The argument that the jury should have been informed of the difference between sworn and unsworn evidence and of the reason that evidence is given unsworn as matters material to the assessment of the unsworn evidence was rejected on the basis that “[a]s a matter of practical reality, neither the fact that [the child] did not 94

Uniform Evidence Law

s 14

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.13.330]

take an oath or make an affirmation before giving her evidence, nor that she was not subject to the sanctions that may apply to the failure to adhere to the oath or affirmation, was material to the assessment of whether [her] evidence was truthful and reliable such that the jury could accept and act upon it” (at [54]). The High Court did not need to decide whether “different considerations would apply where a witness other than a young child is capable of giving evidence about a fact but incapable of giving sworn evidence because the witness does not have the capacity to understand that, in giving evidence about the fact, he or she would be under an obligation to give truthful evidence”, acknowledging that, “[d]epending on the circumstances, it might prove necessary or desirable to give some further form of direction” in such a case (at [57]).

Cth Act: 14

Compellability: reduced capacity A person is not compellable to give evidence on a particular matter if the court is satisfied that: (a) substantial cost or delay would be incurred in ensuring that the person would have the capacity to understand a question about the matter or to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the matter; and [Para (a) am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 4]

(b)

adequate evidence on that matter has been given, or will be able to be given, from one or more other persons or sources.

[S 14 am Act 135 of 2008]

NSW Act: 14

Compellability: reduced capacity

A person is not compellable to give evidence on a particular matter if the court is satisfied that: (a) substantial cost or delay would be incurred in ensuring that the person would have the capacity to understand a question about the matter or to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the matter, and [Para (a) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[4]]

(b)

adequate evidence on that matter has been given, or will be able to be given, from one or more other persons or sources.

[S 14 am Act 46 of 2007]

Vic Act: 14

Compellability—reduced capacity A person is not compellable to give evidence on a particular matter if the court is satisfied that— (a) substantial cost or delay would be incurred in ensuring that the person would have the capacity to understand a question about the matter or to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the matter; and © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

95

[EA.14.30]

(b)

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 14

adequate evidence on that matter has been given, or will be able to be given, from one or more other persons or sources.

ACT Act: 14

Compellability—reduced capacity A person is not compellable to give evidence on a particular matter if the court is satisfied that— (a) substantial cost or delay would be incurred in ensuring that the person would have the capacity to understand a question about the matter or to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the matter; and (b) adequate evidence on the matter has been given, or will be able to be given, from 1 or more other people or sources. NT Act: 14

Compellability — reduced capacity A person is not compellable to give evidence on a particular matter if the court is satisfied that: (a) substantial cost or delay would be incurred in ensuring that the person would have the capacity to understand a question about the matter or to give an answer that can be understood to a question about the matter; and (b) adequate evidence on that matter has been given, or will be able to be given, from one or more other persons or sources.

[EA.14.30]

ALRC References

ALRC 102, paras 4.3–4.89.

[EA.14.60]

General comments

This provision was not proposed by the ALRC in ALRC 38. However, in ALRC 102 it was proposed that it be retained, with amendments to bring it into line with s 13. It empowers the court to allow a witness to choose not to give evidence “on a particular matter” where undue cost or delay would be involved in overcoming some incapacity of understanding. In appropriate circumstances, the witness may not be required to give evidence at all. However, where the witness’s evidence is necessary, because no other evidence on the matter is available (or, what evidence there is, is not “adequate”), all efforts to overcome the incapacity must be taken. Determination of “adequacy” will involve a difficult assessment of evidence already admitted as well as information provided by the parties as to whether other evidence is intended to be adduced.

96

Uniform Evidence Law

s 15

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.14.60]

Cth Act: 15

Compellability: Sovereign and others (1) None of the following is compellable to give evidence: (a) the Sovereign; (b) the Governor-General; (c) the Governor of a State; (d) the Administrator of a Territory; (e) a foreign sovereign or the Head of State of a foreign country.

(2) A member of a House of an Australian Parliament is not compellable to give evidence if the member would, if compelled to give evidence, be prevented from attending: (a) a sitting of that House or a joint sitting of that Parliament; or (b) a meeting of a committee of that House or that Parliament, being a committee of which he or she is a member. NSW Act: 15

Compellability: Sovereign and others (1) None of the following is compellable to give evidence: (a) the Sovereign, (b) the Governor-General, (c) the Governor of a State, (d) the Administrator of a Territory, (e) a foreign sovereign or the Head of State of a foreign country.

(2) A member of a House of an Australian Parliament is not compellable to give evidence if the member would, if compelled to give evidence, be prevented from attending: (a) a sitting of that House, or a joint sitting of that Parliament, or (b) a meeting of a committee of that House or that Parliament, being a committee of which he or she is a member. Vic Act: 15

Compellability—Sovereign and others (1) None of the following is compellable to give evidence— (a) the Sovereign; (b) the Governor-General; (c) the Governor of a State; (d) the Administrator of a Territory; (e) a foreign sovereign or the Head of State of a foreign country.

(2) A member of a House of an Australian Parliament is not compellable to give evidence if the member would, if compelled to give evidence, be prevented from attending— © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

97

[EA.15.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 15

(a) a sitting of that House, or a joint sitting of that Parliament; or (b) a meeting of a committee of that House or that Parliament, being a committee of which he or she is a member. ACT Act: 15

Compellability—Sovereign and others (1) None of the following is compellable to give evidence: (a) the Sovereign; (b) the Governor-General; (c) the Governor of a State; (d) the Administrator of a Territory; (e) a foreign sovereign or the Head of State of a foreign country.

(2) A member of a house of an Australian Parliament is not compellable to give evidence if the member would, if compelled to give evidence, be prevented from attending— (a) a sitting of the house or a joint sitting of the Parliament; or (b) if the member is a member of a committee of the house or the Parliament—a meeting of the committee. NT Act: 15

Compellability — Sovereign and others (1) None of the following is compellable to give evidence: (a) the Sovereign; (b) the Governor-General; (c) the Governor of a State; (d) the Administrator of a Territory; (e) a foreign sovereign or the Head of State of a foreign country.

(2) A member of a House of an Australian Parliament is not compellable to give evidence if the member would, if compelled to give evidence, be prevented from attending: (a) a sitting of that House, or a joint sitting of that Parliament; or (b) a meeting of a committee of that House or that Parliament, being a committee of which he or she is a member.

[EA.15.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 20, para 67; ALRC 26, vol 1, para 526.

[EA.15.60]

General comments [Cth Act only]

Because s 8(1) makes other (Commonwealth) Acts prevail over this Act, the compellability of Commonwealth parliamentarians is governed by the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 14(1).

98

Uniform Evidence Law

s 16

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.15.60]

Cth Act: 16

Competence and compellability: judges and jurors

(1) A person who is a judge or juror in a proceeding is not competent to give evidence in that proceeding. However, a juror is competent to give evidence in the proceeding about matters affecting conduct of the proceeding. (2) A person who is or was a judge in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not compellable to give evidence about that proceeding unless the court gives leave. NSW Act: 16

Competence and compellability: judges and jurors

(1) A person who is a judge or juror in a proceeding is not competent to give evidence in that proceeding. However, a juror is competent to give evidence in the proceeding about matters affecting conduct of the proceeding. (2) A person who is or was a judge in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not compellable to give evidence about that proceeding unless the court gives leave. Vic Act: 16

Competence and compellability—judges and jurors

(1) A person who is a judge or juror in a proceeding is not competent to give evidence in that proceeding. However, a juror is competent to give evidence in the proceeding about matters affecting the conduct of the proceeding. (2) A person who is or was a judge in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not compellable to give evidence about that proceeding unless the court gives leave. ACT Act: 16

Competence and compellability—judges and jurors

(1) A person who is a judge or juror in a proceeding is not competent to give evidence in the proceeding. (2) However, a juror is competent to give evidence in the proceeding about matters affecting conduct of the proceeding. (3) A person who is or was a judge in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not compellable to give evidence about the proceeding unless the court gives leave.

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

99

[EA.16.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 16

NT Act: 16

Competence and compellability — judges and jurors

(1) A person who is a judge or juror in a proceeding is not competent to give evidence in that proceeding. However, a juror is competent to give evidence in the proceeding about matters affecting the conduct of the proceeding. (2) A person who is or was a judge in an Australian or overseas proceeding is not compellable to give evidence about that proceeding unless the court gives leave.

[EA.16.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 21, para 68; ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 247–248, 527.

[EA.16.60]

General comments

The ALRC explained this provision (at ALRC 26, vol 1, para 527): The proposal introduces a new exception relating to judges and jurors – that they be not competent to give evidence in a trial in which they are acting as judge or juror. ... As to the competence of judges or jurors to give evidence about a past trial in which they acted, it is thought that the general rule should apply and that they should be competent – as at present. There is a risk, however, of judges and jurors being involved unnecessarily in proceedings …. The proposal, therefore, adopts the practical expedient of requiring an application for leave to be made to the judge who is presiding at the trial in which it is sought to call the judicial officer to give the evidence.

The ALRC proposal was modified by permitting a juror to “give evidence in the proceeding about matters affecting conduct of the proceeding”. Thus, if an issue arises in the proceeding as to, for example, the application of the law relating to juries, a juror may give evidence on the issue.

[EA.16.90]

“unless the court gives leave”

Section 16(2) provides that a person “who is or was a judge in an Australian or overseas proceeding” is not compellable to give evidence about that proceeding “unless the court gives leave”. Section 192 deals with the grant of leave generally and permits the court to give leave “on such terms as the court thinks fit”. Whenever a court is considering giving leave, permission or a direction under the Act, “in all cases the court must take into account the matters prescribed by s 192(2)”, as well as “matters which may be relevant in a particular case”.34

Cth Act: 17 Competence and compellability: defendants in criminal proceedings (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding.

34. See Stanoevski v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115; [2001] HCA 4 at [41] per Gaudron, Kirby and Callinan JJ.

100

Uniform Evidence Law

s 17

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

(2) A defendant is not competent to give evidence as a witness for the prosecution. (3) An associated defendant is not compellable to give evidence for or against a defendant in a criminal proceeding, unless the associated defendant is being tried separately from the defendant. (4) If a witness is an associated defendant who is being tried jointly with the defendant in the proceeding, the court is to satisfy itself (if there is a jury, in the jury’s absence) that the witness is aware of the effect of subsection (3). Note: Associated defendant is defined in the Dictionary.

NSW Act: 17 Competence and compellability: defendants in criminal proceedings (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A defendant is not competent to give evidence as a witness for the prosecution. (3) An associated defendant is not compellable to give evidence for or against a defendant in a criminal proceeding, unless the associated defendant is being tried separately from the defendant. (4) If a witness is an associated defendant who is being tried jointly with the defendant in the proceeding, the court is to satisfy itself (if there is a jury, in the jury’s absence) that the witness is aware of the effect of subsection (3). Note: Associated defendant is defined in the Dictionary.

Vic Act: 17 Competence and compellability—accused in criminal proceedings (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) An accused is not competent to give evidence as a witness for the prosecution. [Subs (2) am Act 68 of 2009, s 97 and Sch item 55.2]

(3) An associated accused is not compellable to give evidence for or against an accused in a criminal proceeding, unless the associated accused is being tried separately from the accused. [Subs (3) am Act 68 of 2009, s 97 and Sch item 55.3]

(4) If a witness is an associated accused who is being tried jointly with the accused in the proceeding, the court is to satisfy itself (if there is a jury, in the jury’s absence) that the witness is aware of the effect of subsection (3). [Subs (4) am Act 68 of 2009, s 97 and Sch item 55.4] Note: Associated accused is defined in the Dictionary. [S 17 am Act 68 of 2009, s 97 and Sch item 55.1]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

101

[EA.17.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 17

ACT Act: 17 Competence and compellability—defendants in criminal proceedings (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A defendant is not competent to give evidence as a witness for the prosecution. (3) An associated defendant is not compellable to give evidence for or against a defendant in a criminal proceeding unless the associated defendant is being tried separately from the defendant. (4) If a witness is an associated defendant who is being tried jointly with the defendant in the proceeding, the court must satisfy itself (if there is a jury, in the jury’s absence) that the witness is aware of the effect of subsection (3). Note: Associated defendant —see the dictionary.

NT Act: 17 Competence and compellability — defendants in criminal proceedings (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A defendant is not competent to give evidence as a witness for the prosecution. (3) An associated defendant is not compellable to give evidence for or against a defendant in a criminal proceeding, unless the associated defendant is being tried separately from the defendant. (4) If a witness is an associated defendant who is being tried jointly with the defendant in the proceeding, the court is to satisfy itself (if there is a jury, in the jury’s absence) that the witness is aware of the effect of subsection (3). Note for subsections (3) and (4): associated defendant is defined in the Dictionary.

[EA.17.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 22, paras 74–76; ALRC 26, vol 1, para 528.

[EA.17.60]

General comments

This section only applies in a “criminal proceeding”. That term is defined in the Dictionary: “criminal proceeding” means a prosecution for an offence and includes: (a) a proceeding for the committal of a person for trial or sentence for an offence; and (b) a proceeding relating to bail; but does not include a prosecution for an offence that is a prescribed taxation offence within the meaning of Part III of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

Under s 17(3), the “associated defendant” may choose to give evidence for the prosecution (subject to a warning under s 165 and possible discretionary 102

Uniform Evidence Law

s 17

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.17.60]

exclusion under s 137), having been advised by the court (in accordance with s 17(4)) of the right to refuse. “Associated defendant” is defined in the Dictionary: “associated defendant” , in relation to a defendant in a criminal proceeding, means a person against whom a prosecution has been instituted, but not yet completed or terminated, for: (a) an offence that arose in relation to the same events as those in relation to which the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted arose; or (b) an offence that relates to or is connected with the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted.

The prosecution can ensure that an “associated defendant” is compellable by trying him or her separately from the defendant (and completing that prosecution).35 The question arises whether, in joint proceedings, a defendant may be also regarded as an “associated defendant” for the purposes of s 17(3). When a joint trial is held, involving multiple parties, in legal theory there is not one trial but several. In a joint trial involving two defendants (D1 and D2), for example, evidence admitted in the trial against D1 may not be admissible for or against D2, and must be disregarded in the trial of D2. The question in this context is whether D1 may be regarded as an “associated defendant” of D2, and vice versa. In Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; 190 IR 437; [2010] HCA 1 the High Court rejected this possibility. In that case, summary proceedings under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW) were brought in the NSW Industrial Court against Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd (“the Kirk company”) and against Mr Kirk, a director of that company. The charges were heard together. In the course of those proceedings, the prosecution had called Mr Kirk as a witness. The High Court was informed “that Mr Kirk’s giving evidence for the prosecution was a course agreed upon by both sides” (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ at [50]). Indeed, it appears from the oral argument in the High Court that Mr Kirk wanted to be called as a witness by the prosecution so that he could be “cross-examined” by his own legal representatives (Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW [2009] HCATrans 93 at [238]). Plainly the effect of s 17(2) was that Mr Kirk was not a competent witness for the prosecution in the proceedings against him (and his consent could not alter that absence of competence: s 190).36 Technically speaking, he could be regarded as an “associated defendant” in respect of the prosecution against the Kirk company, but this would present a clear procedural problem. It could be said that any evidence he gave when called by the prosecution would not be admissible against him, but his own trial would still be proceeding – he would be a witness for the prosecution in the joint trial of both defendants even if his evidence was not admissible against him. French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ held at [52] (Heydon J agreeing at [116]) that “[i]t is enough to say that where, as was the case here, Mr Kirk and 35. This does not require that the associated defendant be sentenced before being available as a witness for the prosecution, although such a practice is clearly desirable to reduce the danger that the associated defendant perceive some benefit to be obtained from giving evidence supporting the prosecution case. 36. Heydon J provided at [117] an explanation for why a defendant should not be permitted to waive the operation of this provision. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

103

[EA.17.90]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 18

the Kirk company were tried jointly, a distinction of the kind asserted by the second respondent cannot be drawn”. It follows that a defendant in a joint trial with another defendant or defendants is not competent as a witness for the prosecution in that joint trial. Putting the matter differently, the term “associated defendant” should not be understood to extend to a joint trial where the witness is a defendant in the proceedings.

[EA.17.90]

Procedure

The court must satisfy itself (if there is a jury, in the jury’s absence) that an associated defendant is aware of the effect of subsection (3). There is authority suggesting that the court must explain the provision to the witness, rather than rely on counsel.37

[EA.17.120]

Inferences from failure to give evidence

Section 20 deals with “comment” on failure to give evidence.

Cth Act: 18 Compellability of spouses and others in criminal proceedings generally (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A person who, when required to give evidence, is the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant may object to being required: (a) to give evidence; or (b) to give evidence of a communication between the person and the defendant; as a witness for the prosecution. [Subs (2) am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 5]

(3) The objection is to be made before the person gives the evidence or as soon as practicable after the person becomes aware of the right so to object, whichever is the later. (4) If it appears to the court that a person may have a right to make an objection under this section, the court is to satisfy itself that the person is aware of the effect of this section as it may apply to the person. (5) If there is a jury, the court is to hear and determine any objection under this section in the absence of the jury. (6) A person who makes an objection under this section to giving evidence or giving evidence of a communication must not be required to give the evidence if the court finds that: (a) there is a likelihood that harm would or might be caused (whether directly or indirectly) to the person, or to the relationship between the person and the defendant, if the person gives the evidence; and

37. See Trzesinski v Daire (1986) 44 SASR 43 at 45.

104

Uniform Evidence Law

s 18

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

(b)

the nature and extent of that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given.

(7) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account by the court for the purposes of subsection (6), it must take into account the following: (a) the nature and gravity of the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted; (b) the substance and importance of any evidence that the person might give and the weight that is likely to be attached to it; (c) whether any other evidence concerning the matters to which the evidence of the person would relate is reasonably available to the prosecutor; (d) the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the person; (e) whether, in giving the evidence, the person would have to disclose matter that was received by the person in confidence from the defendant. (8) If an objection under this section has been determined, the prosecutor may not comment on: (a) the objection; or (b) the decision of the court in relation to the objection; or (c) the failure of the person to give evidence. [S 18 am Act 135 of 2008]

NSW Act: 18 Compellability of spouses and others in criminal proceedings generally (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A person who, when required to give evidence, is the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant may object to being required: (a) to give evidence, or (b) to give evidence of a communication between the person and the defendant, as a witness for the prosecution. [Subs (2) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[5]]

(3) The objection is to be made before the person gives the evidence or as soon as practicable after the person becomes aware of the right so to object, whichever is the later. (4) If it appears to the court that a person may have a right to make an objection under this section, the court is to satisfy itself that the person is aware of the effect of this section as it may apply to the person. (5) If there is a jury, the court is to hear and determine any objection under this section in the absence of the jury. (6) A person who makes an objection under this section to giving evidence or giving evidence of a communication must not be required to give the evidence if the court finds that: © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

105

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

(a)

(b)

s 18

there is a likelihood that harm would or might be caused (whether directly or indirectly) to the person, or to the relationship between the person and the defendant, if the person gives the evidence, and the nature and extent of that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given.

(7) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account by the court for the purposes of subsection (6), it must take into account the following: (a) the nature and gravity of the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted, (b) the substance and importance of any evidence that the person might give and the weight that is likely to be attached to it, (c) whether any other evidence concerning the matters to which the evidence of the person would relate is reasonably available to the prosecutor, (d) the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the person, (e) whether, in giving the evidence, the person would have to disclose matter that was received by the person in confidence from the defendant. (8) If an objection under this section has been determined, the prosecutor may not comment on: (a) the objection, or (b) the decision of the court in relation to the objection, or (c) the failure of the person to give evidence. [S 18 am Act 46 of 2007]

Vic Act: 18 Compellability of spouses and others in criminal proceedings generally (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A person who, when required to give evidence, is the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of an accused may object to being required— (a) to give evidence; or (b) to give evidence of a communication between the person and the accused— as a witness for the prosecution. [Subs (2) am Act 68 of 2009, s 97 and Sch item 55.5]

(3) The objection is to be made before the person gives the evidence or as soon as practicable after the person becomes aware of the right so to object, whichever is the later. (4) If it appears to the court that a person may have a right to make an objection under this section, the court is to satisfy itself that the person is aware of the effect of this section as it may apply to the person. (5) If there is a jury, the court is to hear and determine any objection under this section in the absence of the jury. 106

Uniform Evidence Law

s 18

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

(6) A person who makes an objection under this section to giving evidence or giving evidence of a communication must not be required to give the evidence if the court finds that— (a) there is a likelihood that harm would or might be caused (whether directly or indirectly) to the person, or to the relationship between the person and the accused, if the person gives the evidence; and (b) the nature and extent of that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given. [Subs (6) am Act 68 of 2009, s 97 and Sch item 55.6]

(7) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account by the court for the purposes of subsection (6), it must take into account the following— (a) the nature and gravity of the offence for which the accused is being prosecuted; (b) the substance and importance of any evidence that the person might give and the weight that is likely to be attached to it; (c) whether any other evidence concerning the matters to which the evidence of the person would relate is reasonably available to the prosecutor; (d) the nature of the relationship between the accused and the person; (e) whether, in giving the evidence, the person would have to disclose matter that was received by the person in confidence from the accused. [Subs (7) am Act 68 of 2009, s 97 and Sch item 55.7]

(8) If an objection under this section has been determined, the prosecutor may not comment on— (a) the objection; or (b) the decision of the court in relation to the objection; or (c) the failure of the person to give evidence. [S 18 am Act 68 of 2009]

ACT Act: 18 Compellability of domestic partners and others in criminal proceedings generally (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A person who, when required to give evidence, is the domestic partner, parent or child of a defendant may object to being required— (a) to give evidence; or (b) to give evidence of a communication between the person and the defendant; as a witness for the prosecution. (3) The objection must be made before the person gives the evidence or as soon as practicable after the person becomes aware of the right to object, whichever is the later. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

107

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 18

(4) If it appears to the court that a person may have a right to make an objection under this section, the court must satisfy itself that the person is aware of the effect of this section as it may apply to the person. (5) If there is a jury, the court must hear and decide any objection under this section in the jury’s absence. (6) A person who makes an objection under this section to giving evidence or giving evidence of a communication must not be required to give the evidence if the court finds that— (a) there is a likelihood that harm would or might be caused (whether directly or indirectly) to the person, or to the relationship between the person and the defendant, if the person gives the evidence; and (b) the nature and extent of that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given. (7) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account by the court for subsection (6), it must take into account the following: (a) the nature and gravity of the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted; (b) the substance and importance of any evidence that the person might give and the weight that is likely to be attached to it; (c) whether any other evidence about the matters to which the evidence of the person would relate is reasonably available to the prosecutor; (d) the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the person; (e) whether, in giving the evidence, the person would have to disclose matter that was received by the person in confidence from the defendant. (8) If an objection under this section has been decided, the prosecutor may not comment on— (a) the objection; or (b) the decision of the court in relation to the objection; or (c) the failure of the person to give evidence. NT Act: 18 Compellability of spouses and others in criminal proceedings generally (1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding. (2) A person who, when required to give evidence, is the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant may object to being required: (a) to give evidence; or (b) to give evidence of a communication between the person and the defendant; as a witness for the prosecution. (3) The objection is to be made before the person gives the evidence or as soon as practicable after the person becomes aware of the right so to object, whichever is the later. 108

Uniform Evidence Law

s 18

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.18.60]

(4) If it appears to the court that a person may have a right to make an objection under this section, the court is to satisfy itself that the person is aware of the effect of this section as it may apply to the person. (5) If there is a jury, the court is to hear and determine any objection under this section in the absence of the jury. (6) A person who makes an objection under this section to giving evidence or giving evidence of a communication must not be required to give the evidence if the court finds that: (a) there is a likelihood that harm would or might be caused (whether directly or indirectly) to the person, or to the relationship between the person and the defendant, if the person gives the evidence; and (b) the nature and extent of that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given. (7) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account by the court for the purposes of subsection (6), it must take into account the following: (a) the nature and gravity of the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted; (b) the substance and importance of any evidence that the person might give and the weight that is likely to be attached to it; (c) whether any other evidence concerning the matters to which the evidence of the person would relate is reasonably available to the prosecutor; (d) the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the person; (e) whether, in giving the evidence, the person would have to disclose matter that was received by the person in confidence from the defendant. (8) If an objection under this section has been determined, the prosecutor may not comment on: (a) the objection; or (b) the decision of the court in relation to the objection; or (c) the failure of the person to give evidence.

[EA.18.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 102, paras 4.90–4.117; ALRC 38, s 24, paras 79–83; ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 256–257, 529–539.

[EA.18.60]

Application

On the basis that s 12 indicates a clear legislative intention that the provisions of the NSW Act abrogate “the operation of a principle or rule of common law or equity in relation to” the competence and compellability of witnesses (s 9), it has been held that “there is no room to read down their clear meaning by the

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

109

[EA.18.60]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 18

application of” the common law principles relating to spousal compellability.38 The same conclusion should be drawn in respect of the Commonwealth and Victorian Acts. This provision only applies in a “criminal proceeding”. This term is defined in the Dictionary: “criminal proceeding” means a prosecution for an offence and includes: (a) a proceeding for the committal of a person for trial or sentence for an offence; and (b) a proceeding relating to bail; but does not include a prosecution for an offence that is a prescribed taxation offence within the meaning of Part III of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

In addition, it applies only to “a person who, when required to give evidence39 is the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child” of the defendant The term “spouse” is not defined in the Act. However, the term “de facto partner” is defined in cl 11 of Pt 2 of the Dictionary: see commentary at [EA.Dict.Pt.2.90]. “Parent” is defined in the Dictionary: “parent” includes the meaning given in subclause 10(2) of Part 2 of this Dictionary.

That subclause provides: (2) A reference in this Act to a parent of a person includes a reference to: (a) an adoptive parent of the person; or (b) if the person is an ex-nuptial child – the person’s natural father; or (c) the person with whom a child is living as if the child were a member of the person’s family.

“Child” is defined in the Dictionary: “child” means a child of any age and includes the meaning given in subclause 10(1) of Part 2 of this Dictionary.

That subclause provides: 10

(1) A reference in this Act to a child of a person includes a reference to: (a) an adopted child and an ex-nuptial child of the person; or (b) a child living with the person as if the child were a member of the person’s family.

Commentary on the meaning of the term “child” may be found in the Dictionary at [EA.Dict.Pt.2.90]. Finally, s 19 (in those jurisdictions where it applies) limits the application of s 18, so that a member of the family of a defendant in criminal proceedings may be compelled by the prosecution to give evidence against the defendant in certain types of proceedings relating to alleged assaults on children and other forms of “domestic violence”. 38. R v Glasby (2000) 115 A Crim R 465; [2000] NSWCCA 83 at [39]–[54]. Similarly, it was held that there was no room for any marital communication privilege (which, in any event, no longer exists under the common law: Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart [2011] HCA 47). However, s 126B may have some application. 39. Compare Director of Public Prosecutions v Smiles (1993) 30 NSWLR 248.

110

Uniform Evidence Law

s 18

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.18.90]

[EA.18.180]

Nature of objection (s 18(2))

Subject to s 18(2)(b), the objection to giving evidence cannot be partial. That is, the witness must object to giving any evidence. As long as the person is aware of the right to object (and he or she should be informed of the right under s 18(4)), the person will not be permitted to give some evidence and then choose to decline to answer further questions (subject to s 18(2)(b)). If the person did not become aware of the right to object until after starting to give evidence, and then is permitted to decline to give any further evidence, the evidence which has been given up to that point continues to be admissible.

[EA.18.120]

The balancing test (s 18(6))

Given that it will rarely be difficult to demonstrate that it is likely that harm “might” be caused to the relationship between the person and the defendant if the person gives evidence for the prosecution against the defendant (thus satisfying the requirements of s 18(6)(a)), the critical issue will be the balancing test under s 18(6)(b).40 The ALRC stated (ALRC 26, vol 1, para 529): A right to seek exemption is generally supported on two policy grounds: (a) the undesirability that the procedures for enforcing the criminal law should be allowed to disrupt marital and family relationships to a greater extent than the interests of the community really require; (b) the undesirability that the community should make unduly harsh demands on its members by compelling them where the general interest does not require it to give evidence that will bring punishment upon those they love, betray their confidences, or entail economic or social hardships.

Relevant considerations which must be taken into account are listed in s 18(7).41 Ultimately, however, the issue is left to judicial discretion.42 In that context, it would be appropriate for the court to give consideration to the “discretions” in ss 135 and 137.43

[EA.18.150]

“required to give the evidence” (s 18(6))

Section 18(6) states that “[a] person who makes an objection under this section to giving evidence or giving evidence of a communication must not be required to give the evidence if …”. Plainly enough, “giving evidence” would include the person testifying orally in the proceeding. It has been held that this may extend to the playing of a videotape of earlier testimony given by the person.44 It would not extend to a party adducing a written statement made by the person.45

[EA.18.180]

Procedure

The court must satisfy itself (if there is a jury, in the jury’s absence) that a person who may have a right to make an objection under this section is aware of the 40. See Sanderson v Rabuntja [2014] NTSC 13 at [15]–[16]. 41. See Sanderson v Rabuntja [2014] NTSC 13 at [17]–[22]. 42. See, for example, R v Khan (unreported, NSW SC, Hidden J, 22 November 1995); R v A2 (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1306 at [142]–[172]. 43. Compare Gilmour v Environment Protection Authority [2002] NSWCCA 399. 44. See R v B O (No 2) (2012) 15 DCLR (NSW) 317; [2012] NSWDC 195, discussed in Fletcher v The Queen [2015] VSCA 146 at [56]–[58]. 45. Fletcher v The Queen [2015] VSCA 146 at [59]–[61]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

111

[EA.18.210]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 19

46

effect of the section as it may relate to that person. There is authority suggesting that the court must explain the provision to the witness, rather than rely on counsel.47 Only the person who is sought to be compelled to give evidence may object.48 As regards the determination of issues raised by this section, it does not contain a provision allowing the court to “inform itself as it thinks fit”. Such a provision was proposed by the ALRC49 and it may have been left out by oversight. Nevertheless, given s 11, its absence should not prevent the court from moulding its procedure to determine the relevant questions as it considers most appropriate.50 In any event, s 189 provides a procedure for determining “preliminary facts”, including facts on which the compellability of a witness is dependent. However, in accordance with s 18(5), if there is a jury, it must be sent out of the court while the court hears and determines any objection under this provision.

[EA.18.210]

Comment by the prosecutor (s 18(8))

The ALRC proposed that, while the trial judge would be permitted to comment on the fact that a member of the defendant’s family has objected to giving evidence, the prosecution should not be permitted to say anything directly or indirectly about the matter.51

Cth Act: 19 Compellability of spouses and others in certain criminal proceedings [Repealed] [S 19 rep Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 13; am Act 135 of 2008]

NSW Act: 19 Compellability of spouses and others in certain criminal proceedings Section 18 does not apply: (a) in proceedings for an offence against or referred to in the following provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998: (i) section 222 (Endangering children in employment), (ii) section 223 (Certain employers of children to be authorised), (iii) section 227 (Child and young person abuse), (iv) section 228 (Neglect of children and young persons), or (b) if the person could be compelled to give evidence in proceedings under section 279 (Compellability of spouses to give evidence in certain proceedings) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. 46. Compare T v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 460. 47. See Trzesinski v Daire (1986) 44 SASR 43 at 45. 48. Gilmour v Environment Protection Authority [2002] NSWCCA 399 at [48]. 49. ALRC 26, vol 1, para 53.8. 50. See Trzesinski v Daire (1986) 44 SASR 43 at 45–46 for discussion of a possible procedure. 51. ALRC 26, vol 1, para 559. See also s 20(3).

112

Uniform Evidence Law

s 19

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

Note: This section differs from section 19 of the Commonwealth Act. [S 19 subst Act 80 of 2013, Sch 8; am Act 121 of 2001, s 4 and Sch 2.103[1]; Act 94 of 1999, s 6 and Sch 4.21[1]; Act 158 of 1998, s 5 and Sch 2.14]

Vic Act: 19 Compellability of spouses and others in certain criminal proceedings Note: Section 19 of the Commonwealth Act and New South Wales Act excludes the application of the section in proceedings for certain offences.

ACT Act: 19 Compellability of domestic partners and others in certain criminal proceedings Section 18 does not apply in a proceeding for an offence against or mentioned in the following provisions: (a) an offence against the Crimes Act 1900, parts 2 to 5, that is an offence against a person under 16 years old; (b) an offence against the following provisions of the Children and Young People Act 2008: (i) section 423 (Offence—contravene care and protection order); (ii) section 789 (Offence—contravene employment prohibition notice); (iii) section 791 (Offence—contravene employment conditions notice); (iv) section 803 (Offence—employment of child or young person under 15 years old in high risk employment); (v) section 804 (Offence—contravene condition of permit); (c) an offence that is a domestic violence offence within the meaning of the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008. Note: This section differs from the Commonwealth Act and NSW Act, s 19.

NT Act: 19 Compellability of spouses and others in certain criminal proceedings Section 18 does not apply in a proceeding for any of the following offences: (a) [Repealed] [Para (a) rep Act 4 of 2013, s 4(1)]

(b)

an offence against a law of the Territory where the alleged victim is a person under the age of 16 years;

[Para (b) am Act 4 of 2013, s 4(2)]

(c) (d)

an offence that is a DVO contravention offence as defined in the Domestic and Family Violence Act; an offence against section 43BI, or a provision in Part VIII, of the Criminal Code in relation to an offence mentioned in paragraph (b).

[Para (d) am Act 4 of 2013, s 4(3)] Note for section 19: This section differs from section 19 of the Commonwealth Act, NSW Act and Victorian Act. [S 19 am Act 4 of 2013] © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

113

[EA.19.30]

[EA.19.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 19

General comments

This provision (which is not found in the Victorian Act) limits the application of s 18, so that a member of the family of a defendant in criminal proceedings may be compelled by the prosecution to give evidence against the defendant in certain types of proceedings relating to alleged assaults on children and other forms of “domestic violence”. The offences listed in s 19 of the Commonwealth Act are the same offences (in substance) for which a spouse of a defendant in a criminal proceeding was a compellable witness under s 66(3) of the Evidence Act 1971 (ACT).52 The NSW provision was amended in 2013 (coming into force on 29 October 2013), as a result of the judgment in LS v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2011] NSWSC 1016; 221 A Crim R 347. Johnson J observed at [71] that the provision should be amended “so that it provides clearly and simply, and by reference to current legislation, the areas of exception which are to apply to the availability of s 18 of the Act”. The provisions listed in s 19 of the NSW Act re-enacted s 407(3)(b) and s 407AA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), since repealed. As regards s 279 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (extracted in Related Legislation), which applies to “child assault” and “domestic violence” offences, it provides that the “husband or wife of an accused person” is compellable unless excused by the court on the basis of conditions contained in s 279(4).

Cth Act: 20

Comment on failure to give evidence

(1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence. (2) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure of the defendant to give evidence. However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, the comment must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant had, or believed that he or she had, committed the offence concerned. [Subs (2) am Act 4 of 2016, s 3 and Sch 4 item 384]

(3) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure to give evidence by a person who, at the time of the failure, was: (a) the defendant’s spouse or de facto partner; or (b) a parent or child of the defendant. [Subs (3) am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 6; Act 34 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 6 item 1]

52. The application of s 19(c) of the Commonwealth Act, as it was formulated prior to the amendments following on ALRC 102, was considered in R v Wright (2004) 149 A Crim R 298; [2004] ACTSC 83 and R v YL (2004) 187 FLR 84; [2004] ACTSC 115. The provisions listed in the ACT provision involve specified offences in the Crimes Act 1900 against a person under 16 years old, specified offences in the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 and domestic violence offences.

114

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

(4) However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, a comment of a kind referred to in subsection (3) must not suggest that the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child failed to give evidence because: (a) the defendant had committed the offence concerned; or (b) the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child believed that the defendant had committed the offence concerned. [Subs (4) am Act 4 of 2016, s 3 and Sch 4 item 385; Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 items 7 and 8; Act 34 of 1997, s 3 and Sch 6 item 2]

(5) If: (a) 2 or more persons are being tried together for an indictable offence; and (b) comment is made by any of those persons on the failure of any of those persons or of the spouse or de facto partner, or a parent or child, of any of those persons to give evidence; the judge may, in addition to commenting on the failure to give evidence, comment on any comment of a kind referred to in paragraph (b). [Subs (5) am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 8] [S 20 am Act 4 of 2016; Act 135 of 2008; Act 34 of 1997]

NSW Act: 20

Comment on failure to give evidence

(1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence. (2) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure of the defendant to give evidence. However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, the comment must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned. (3) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure to give evidence by a person who, at the time of the failure, was: (a) the defendant’s spouse or de facto partner, or (b) a parent or child of the defendant. [Subs (3) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[6]]

(4) However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, a comment of a kind referred to in subsection (3) must not suggest that the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child failed to give evidence because: (a) the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned, or (b) the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child believed that the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned. [Subs (4) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[7]]

(5) If: (a) 2 or more persons are being tried together for an indictable offence, and © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

115

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

(b)

comment is made by any of those persons on the failure of any of those persons or of the spouse or de facto partner, or a parent or child, of any of those persons to give evidence, the judge may, in addition to commenting on the failure to give evidence, comment on any comment of a kind referred to in paragraph (b). [Subs (5) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[7]] [S 20 am Act 46 of 2007]

Vic Act: 20

Comment on failure to give evidence

Note: Section 20 of the Commonwealth Act and New South Wales Act requires the judge to give certain directions to the jury relating to the failure to give evidence or call witnesses in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence. Division 6 of Part 4 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 contains provisions relating to the failure to give evidence or call a witness that apply in criminal trials. [S 20 am Act 14 of 2015, s 70; Act 68 of 2009]

ACT Act: 20

Comment on failure to give evidence

(1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence. (2) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure of a defendant to give evidence. (3) However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, the comment must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that the defendant was, guilty of the offence. (4) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure to give evidence by a person who, at the time of the failure, was— (a) the defendant’s domestic partner; or (b) a parent or child of the defendant. (5) However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, a comment mentioned in subsection (4) must not suggest that the domestic partner, parent or child failed to give evidence because— (a) the defendant was guilty of the offence; or (b) the domestic partner, parent or child believed that the defendant was guilty of the offence. (6) If— (a) 2 or more people are being tried together for an indictable offence; and (b) comment is made by any of them on the failure of any of them or of the domestic partner, or a parent or child, of any of them to give evidence; the judge may, in addition to commenting on the failure to give evidence, comment on any comment mentioned in paragraph (b).

116

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.20.90]

NT Act: 20

Comment on failure to give evidence

(1) This section applies only in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence. (2) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure of the defendant to give evidence. However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, the comment must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned. (3) The judge or any party (other than the prosecutor) may comment on a failure to give evidence by a person who, at the time of the failure, was: (a) the defendant’s spouse or de facto partner; or (b) a parent or child of the defendant. (4) However, unless the comment is made by another defendant in the proceeding, a comment of a kind referred to in subsection (3) must not suggest that the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child failed to give evidence because: (a) the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned; or (b) the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child believed that the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned. (5) If: (a) 2 or more persons are being tried together for an indictable offence; and (b) comment is made by any of those persons on the failure of any of those persons or of the spouse or de facto partner, or a parent or child, of any of those persons to give evidence; the judge may, in addition to commenting on the failure to give evidence, comment on any comment of a kind referred to in paragraph (b).

[EA.20.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 102, paras 4.90–4.117; ALRC 38, s 23, s 28.

[EA.20.60]

Differences between provisions

The Victorian provision was repealed in 2015 and, as the Note in the Victorian Act states, Div 6 of Pt 4 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 contains provisions relating to the failure to give evidence or call a witness that apply in criminal trials (see [EA.20.420]).

[EA.20.90]

Application

This provision only applies in “a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence”. “Criminal proceeding” is defined in the Dictionary. While the word “offence” is defined in the Dictionary to mean “an offence against or arising under an Australian law”, the term “indictable offence” is not defined in this Act. However, s 4G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides: Offences against a law of the Commonwealth punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months are indictable offences unless the contrary intention appears. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

117

[EA.20.120]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

The Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) defines an “indictable offence” as any offence which is not required to be dealt with summarily (with most offences punishable by less than two years imprisonment required to be dealt with summarily). Section 131 of that Act provides that “criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court or the District Court are to be tried by a jury, except as otherwise provided by this Part”, while s 132 permits trial by judge alone if the defendant and prosecution consent. In Victoria, s 2B of the Crimes Act 1958 deems offences under that Act to be “indictable offences”, unless the contrary intention appears. Section 391 makes it clear that trials of such offences are to be heard by a judge and jury. Notwithstanding the technicalities in the Commonwealth and NSW legislation, it appears to be the clear intention behind s 20 that it applies to criminal proceedings with a judge and jury. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the common law principles that underlie this provision and continue to operate (see discussion below) have application to a trial by judge alone. As regards sentencing proceedings, in Thi Dung Ta v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 32 James J (Hall and Price JJ agreeing) found it unnecessary to determine whether authorities relating to “comment” on the failure of a defendant to testify have any application to such proceedings (at [120]). Clearly enough, for a sentencing judge to take into account the failure of a defendant/offender to testify does not, strictly speaking, involve a “comment” on that failure. On the other hand, the principles that underlie this area of the law may still have application in sentencing proceedings, notwithstanding the differences between a criminal trial before a jury and a sentence hearing before a judge.53

[EA.20.120]

“comment on the failure of the defendant to give evidence” (s 20(2))

The Act distinguishes comment by the judge, the prosecutor and a co-defendant on the failure of the defendant (in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence) to give evidence: • the prosecutor is generally prohibited from commenting (see [EA.20.150]); • the judge may comment but “must not suggest that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned” (see [EA.20.180]); • “another defendant in the proceeding” may comment (see [EA.20.210]). Under s 20(5), if another person “being tried together” with a defendant “for an indictable offence” comments on the failure of the defendant to give evidence, the judge may comment on that comment (but is still bound by the prohibition in s 20(2)). 53. However, James J noted at [118] that in the Queensland case of R v Miller [2004] 1 Qd R 548; [2003] QCA 404 Holmes J, who delivered the leading judgment with which the other members of the Queensland Court of Appeal agreed, after pointing to various differences between a criminal trial before a jury and a sentence hearing before a judge, said at [27]: “Because of these distinctions, I do not think that the constraints on comment and approach imposed by the Weissensteiner line of authority have any application to fact finding on sentence.”

118

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

[EA.20.150]

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.20.150]

Comment by prosecutor on the failure of the defendant to give evidence (s 20(2))

The prosecutor may not “comment” on a failure of the defendant to give evidence. This word is not defined. In R v Villar [2004] NSWCCA 302 at [119], the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal adopted the approach of non–UEL authority, whereby “comment” on the failure of a defendant to give evidence is any statement which directly or indirectly suggests that the defendant could have given evidence and did not do so.54 A reference to the first fact will almost always imply the second,55 but a reference to the second alone does not necessarily imply the first.56 In most circumstances, a reference to the failure of the defendant to call any witness is not such a “comment”.57 Similarly, it is not a “comment” to state that the only version of the facts before the court is that proved by the prosecution witnesses and, if counsel for the defence has engaged in speculation as to alternative scenarios, that there is no evidence to support such alternative scenarios.58 It is not clear whether the prohibition on “comment” extends to a prosecutor’s opening address informing the jury of the options open to a defendant.59 As regards final addresses, in R v Milat (unreported, NSW SC, 23 April 1996), Hunt CJ at CL stated: It has been the usual practice for Crown prosecutors to refer in their final addresses to the nature of the direction which was given within the limitations imposed by [earlier legislation]. Provided that Crown Prosecutors do not imply that they are adopting the comment inherent in the directions which may now be given, I see no reason why they should not continue to do so – although a high degree of caution is required.

However, it may be observed that it is difficult to see how a prosecutor can avoid implying that he or she is “adopting the comment inherent in the directions” from the judge. In Wood v R (2012) 84 NSWLR 581; [2012] NSWCCA 21, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal held at [618] that a prosecutor’s final address breached the provision where a series of questions were asked and it was said that “the answers all point to the guilt of the accused”– because that indirectly alluded to the failure of the accused to provide any answers (which was compounded by an invitation to pay attention to whether defence counsel provided any answers). 54. Bataillard v The King (1907) 4 CLR 1282 per Isaacs J (at 1291), Higgins J (at 1292); Peterson v The Queen (1979) 41 FLR 205 at 211. See also R v McGibbony [1956] VLR 424 (FC); R v Challita (1988) 37 A Crim R 175 (NSW CCA); R v Greciun-King [1981] 2 NSWLR 469 (CCA). 55. See Stuart v The Queen (1959) 101 CLR 1. 56. R v Barron [1975] VR 496 at 502; R v Greciun-King [1981] 2 NSWLR 469 (CCA), Street CJ at 471; R v George (1981) 4 A Crim R 12 at 15 per Street CJ (NSW CCA). However, it is suggested that this authority will have to be reconsidered now that the defendant no longer has the right to make an unsworn statement. In those circumstances, a reference to the failure of the defence to call any evidence would appear to be a comment: cf R v Clarke (unreported, NSW CCA, 8 March 1996). In R v Mansour (unreported, NSW SC, Levine J, 26 November 1996) it was held that a Crown reference to the prosecution witnesses being “uncontradicted by other evidence at trial” would point to, or at least carry, a clear implication with respect to the failure of the defendant to give evidence and therefore constitute a prohibited comment under s 20. 57. R v Thornton (1980) 3 A Crim R 80 (VicCCA) per Murray J (at 84), King J (at 86). 58. R v Yammine [2002] NSWCCA 289 at [57]–[58]; Siebel v The Queen (1992) 59 A Crim R 105 at 109 (SA CCA) per King CJ. 59. See Peterson v The Queen (1979) 41 FLR 205 at 211 (Full Federal Court). © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

119

[EA.20.180]

[EA.20.180]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

Comment by the judge on the failure of the defendant to give evidence (s 20(2))

As noted in [EA.20.150], “comment” on the failure of a defendant to give evidence is any statement that directly or indirectly suggests that the defendant could have given evidence and did not do so. It would not be “comment” for a trial judge to point out that prosecution circumstantial evidence had not been contradicted by defence evidence.60 There is no doubt that a judge may, and usually should, make a comment on the failure of the defendant to give evidence which is designed to assist the defence by warning the jury against adopting an impermissible chain of reasoning. In Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 the majority of the High Court stated at [51] that: … if an accused does not give evidence at trial it will almost always be desirable for the judge to warn the jury that the accused’s silence in court is not evidence against the accused, does not constitute an admission by the accused, may not be used to fill gaps in the evidence tendered by the prosecution, and may not be used as a make weight in assessing whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Such directions, or at least directions which reflect the purpose behind the form of words adopted, will usually be essential to ensure a fair trial,61 even if not requested by defence counsel.62 It may also be appropriate to direct the jury that they “cannot speculate on what the [defendant] could or would have said”.63 Directions pointing out that the defendant was not bound to give evidence and, that there may have been many reasons why he or she did not do so (and the jury should not speculate about those reasons) may also be appropriate.64

60. Compare R v Porter (2003) 85 SASR 581; 138 A Crim R 581; [2003] SASC 233 (SACCA). 61. See R v Macris (2004) 147 A Crim R 99; [2004] NSWCCA 261; see also RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3 at [15] and [43] per Gaudron ACJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ. Such a direction is desirable unless there is some feature of the case that renders it unnecessary or inappropriate: Burke v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 40 VR 161; 237 A Crim R 130; [2013] VSCA 351 at [69]–[73]. However, the High Court “cannot be taken to have ruled that in every case it is compulsory let alone desirable” for directions to be given to the jury regarding the failure of a defendant to give evidence: R v Richards (2002) 128 A Crim R 204; [2002] NSWCCA 38 at [29] per Levine J; R v Nguyen [2002] NSWCCA 342 at [48]–[52]; Saunders v The Queen (2004) 149 A Crim R 174; [2004] TASSC 95 (Tas CCA) at [29], [77]. Equally, no particular form of words need be used: R v Colville (2003) 137 A Crim R 543; [2003] NSWCCA 23 at [63]–[66]. In R v Wilson (2005) 62 NSWLR 346; [2005] NSWCCA 20 the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal strongly criticised Macris. Hunt AJA (Grove J and James J agreeing) observed at [34]–[35] that it will not be “desirable” to give particular aspects of the Azzopardi formulation if the direction that is given covers the same ground as that formulation and adequately fulfils the purpose behind that formulation. 62. Johnston v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 133; Sever v The Queen (2007) 179 A Crim R 110; [2007] NSWCCA 339; R v GAJ [2011] QCA 141; Burke v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 40 VR 161; 237 A Crim R 130; [2013] VSCA 351 at [73]. 63. R v Vaughan (1997) 98 A Crim R 239 at 243 per Dunford J. 64. While such a direction is appropriate, it will usually not be essential: R v Macris (2004) 147 A Crim R 99; [2004] NSWCCA 261 at [24]–[28]; R v Nguyen [2002] NSWCCA 342 at [51]–[52]; R v Davis [1999] NSWCCA 15; R v Sabbah [2004] NSWCCA 28 at [88], [150]. In R v Wilson (2005) 62 NSWLR 346; [2005] NSWCCA 20, Hunt AJA observed at [14] that such a “direction

120

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.20.180]

The scope of permissible adverse comment by a judge under this provision (and fundamental accusatorial principles) has been considered by the High Court in RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3 and in Azzopardi v The Queen. In respect of the prohibition on any comment which “suggest[s] that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned”, the majority of the High Court stated in RPS: Section 20(2) should be given no narrow construction inviting the drawing of fine distinctions. In particular, the prohibition contained in the second sentence (forbidding the judge making a comment that suggests the accused failed to give evidence because he or she was, or believed that he or she was, guilty) must be given full operation. In that respect this prohibition should not be treated differently from the prohibition (still operative in some Australian jurisdictions) against a judge making any comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence. To adopt and adapt what was said by Isaacs J in Bataillard v The King, if comment is made about the accused not having given evidence it must not make any “reference, direct or indirect, and either by express words or the most subtle allusion” suggesting that the accused did not give evidence because he or she was, or believed that he or she was, guilty. It has been said that the line between what is permissible and what is not, under provisions which prohibit any comment on a failure to give evidence, may be a fine one. Whether or not that is so, s 20(2) requires a line to be drawn and it should be drawn in a way that gives the prohibition against suggesting particular reasons for not giving evidence its full operation.65

The majority of the High Court held that a judicial comment to the jury that they were “entitled to conclude, from the accused’s election not to deny or contradict [certain prosecution] evidence that his evidence would not have assisted him in this trial” was in breach of the prohibition, since “any belief which the appellant held, that his evidence would not have assisted him in his trial, could proceed only from a belief that he was guilty; that is, it could proceed only from a belief that he could not deny or contradict at least some of what had been said against him”.66 Callinan J went further, holding that any adverse comment would inevitably breach the statutory prohibition.67 Quite apart from the statutory prohibition, the majority of the High Court held that substantial limitations were imposed by fundamental accusatorial principles applicable to a criminal trial. The majority stated (at [22]–[27]): is … only necessary where” a suggestion has been made “that a failure by the accused to contradict or explain incriminating evidence, in circumstances where it would be reasonable to expect him to do so, may make it easier for the jury to accept, or to draw inferences from, the evidence on which the Crown relies”. 65. RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3, Gaudron ACJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ at [20]. See also McHugh J at [47], where he noted that “for the purpose of the section there is no difference between the judge saying ‘It is plain that …’, ‘You may think that …’ and ‘You are entitled to conclude that …’.” 66. RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3, Gaudron ACJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ at [19]. The majority stated (at [30]) that, if R v D (1997) 45 NSWLR 744; 98 A Crim R 151 is “to be taken as establishing, as a general proposition, that it is proper in cases similar to the present to give directions of the kind given here, it should be overruled”. 67. Callinan J at [108]–[109]. Thus, Callinan J considered that a comment that the jury would be entitled, in certain circumstances, to more readily accept uncontradicted prosecution evidence would be impermissible under s 20(2). This view does not appear to be shared by the majority of the High Court. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

121

[EA.20.180]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

What is presently significant is that a criminal trial is an accusatorial process in which the prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In a trial of that kind, what significance can be attached to the fact that the accused does not give evidence? … In a civil trial there will very often be a reasonable expectation that a party would give or call relevant evidence. … By contrast, however, it will seldom, if ever, be reasonable to conclude that an accused in a criminal trial would be expected to give evidence. The most that can be said in criminal matters is that there are some cases in which evidence (or an explanation) contradicting an apparently damning inference to be drawn from proven facts could come only from the accused. In the absence of such evidence or explanation, the jury may more readily draw the conclusion which the prosecution seeks.

In Azzopardi v The Queen, the majority of the High Court added (at [34]): It is, therefore, clear beyond doubt that the fact that an accused does not give evidence at trial is not of itself evidence against the accused. It is not an admission of guilt by conduct; it cannot fill in any gaps in the prosecution case; it cannot be used as a make-weight in considering whether the prosecution has proved the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.

However, in an earlier decision of the High Court, Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; 68 A Crim R 251; [1993] HCA 65, members of the court had stated (at 227–229 per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ): [I]n a criminal trial, hypotheses consistent with innocence may cease to be rational or reasonable in the absence of evidence to support them when that evidence, if it exists at all, must be within the knowledge of the accused.

The words “in the absence of evidence to support them” should be noted. Thus, the principle in Weissensteiner may only arise where there is no evidence to support an innocent hypothesis.68 Further, in RPS, the majority emphasised the last words of the sentence, limiting the decision in Weissensteiner to its unusual factual circumstances. In that case, the prosecution case was that the defendant’s guilt was to be inferred from circumstances, particularly the unexplained disappearance of those whom it was alleged he had murdered, and his possession of the boat and equipment which they owned and from which they had disappeared while on a voyage with the accused. Only he knew what had really happened. In those circumstances, unless there were legitimate reasons for the failure to give evidence,69 uncontradicted evidence is easier or safer to accept 68. See Davies v The Queen [2014] VSCA 284 at [117]. 69. For example, the prosecution case may be so deficient that the defence was relying on the burden of proof cast on the prosecution (see Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ in Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; 68 A Crim R 251; [1993] HCA 65 at 228 (CLR)). It may also be observed that concerns about the ability of the defendant to handle cross-examination and reliance on evidence of an account given by the defendant before the trial may also be argued to be legitimate reasons. Indeed, it is arguable that since a judge cannot know what advice the defendant received regarding the strength of the prosecution case and/or his or her ability to cope with cross-examination, the failure of the defendant to give evidence is never “clearly capable of assisting [the jury] in the evaluation of the evidence before them” (Weissensteiner at 228). Compare R v Mora (unreported, Vic CCA, Phillips CJ, Southwell, Smith AJJA, 30 May 1996) (particularly the judgment of Smith J) with R v Wood (1996) 87 A Crim R 346 and R v Kragujevic (unreported, SA CCA, Prior, Olsson, Duggan JJ, 17 April 1996). On the other hand, it has been held that it would only be in a “rare case” that an explanation given by a defendant before trial would make it inappropriate to comment on the failure to give evidence at trial: R v Ellis (1998) 100 A Crim R 49 (SA CCA). Similarly, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal has

122

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.20.180]

70

than contradicted evidence. The trial judge in that case had made no error by directing the jury that they could more safely draw the inferences that the prosecution alleged should be drawn. In Azzopardi, the majority of the High Court reconciled RPS and Weissensteiner in the following way: There may be cases involving circumstances such that the reasoning in Weissensteiner will justify some comment. However, that will be so only if there is a basis for concluding that, if there are additional facts which would explain or contradict the inference which the prosecution seeks to have the jury draw, and they are facts which (if they exist) would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, that a comment on the accused’s failure to provide evidence of those facts may be made. The facts which it is suggested could have been, but were not, revealed by evidence from the accused must be additional to those already given in evidence by the witnesses who were called. The fact that the accused could have contradicted evidence already given will not suffice.71

If an adverse comment is not permissible, it would be wrong to qualify the comment (discussed above) given to assist the defence by warning the jury against adopting an impermissible chain of reasoning. Thus, for example, in Norton v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 115 the Western Australian Court of Appeal disapproved a trial judge saying the following after giving a favourable direction: “On the other hand, it does nothing to explain, rebut or contradict the evidence presented by the prosecution”. Even if the case is one of those “rare and exceptional” ones72 where the reasoning in Weissensteiner v The Queen would justify some comment, considerable caution must be exercised by the judge. A judgment must be made as to whether, in all of the circumstances, it could fairly be said that a failure to give evidence bears on the probative value of the other evidence which has been given and which the jury is required to consider.73 As was pointed out in Weissensteiner (at 228 per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ): Even if there are facts peculiarly within the accused’s knowledge the deficiencies in the prosecution case may be sufficient to account for the accused remaining silent and rejected a submission that the fact that the defendant participated in a police interview, which is before the jury, “necessarily militates against giving a Weissensteiner direction”: R v Davis [1999] NSWCCA 15 at [49] per Wood CJ at CL. 70. Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; 68 A Crim R 251; [1993] HCA 65 per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ (at 227–229 (CLR)); Brennan and Toohey JJ (at 235–236). There is a distinction between drawing an inference of guilt merely from silence and drawing an inference otherwise available more safely simply because the defendant has not supported any hypothesis which is consistent with innocence from facts which the court perceives to be within his or her knowledge. 71. Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 at [64] per Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ. Gleeson CJ and McHugh J dissented. See also R v Giri (2001) 121 A Crim R 568; [2001] NSWCCA 197; LGM v CAM (2006) 200 FLR 360; [2006] FamCA 435; Butler v The Queen (2011) 216 A Crim R 215; [2011] VSCA 417 at [140]–[155] (but see Maxwell P at [33]–[37]). 72. See Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 at [68]. See also Burke v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 40 VR 161; 237 A Crim R 130; [2013] VSCA 351 at [47]; Lowe v The Queen [2015] VSCA 327 at [211]–[221]. 73. Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; 68 A Crim R 251; [1993] HCA 65 at 228 (CLR) per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ. See also R v Clune (1999) 72 SASR 420. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

123

[EA.20.180]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

relying upon the burden of proof cast upon the prosecution. Much depends upon the circumstances of the particular case and a jury should not be invited to take into account the failure of the accused to give evidence unless that failure is clearly capable of assisting them in the evaluation of the evidence before them.

This is particularly the case where more than one count is charged. As the majority stated in RPS, in such a situation the course which the defendant takes “may very well be affected greatly by whether the denial or contradiction of each charge can be maintained with the same degree of force”.74 As a practical matter, it will often be prudent for a trial judge, before giving directions, to raise with counsel, in the absence of the jury, the question of what direction should be given.75 Further, and more generally, the majority of the High Court in RPS observed that, while it may be open to the judge to comment (adversely to the defence) on this “factual issue” in the particular circumstances of the case: [o]ften, perhaps much more often than not, the safer course for a trial judge will be to make no comment on the facts beyond reminding the jury, in the course of identifying the issues before them, of the arguments of counsel.76

However, it may be observed that it will be somewhat difficult to apply that principle in the context of the failure of the defendant to testify, given that the prosecution is expressly barred from commenting by this provision. If an adverse comment is to be made on the failure of the defendant to give evidence, it should be expressed in terms of a failure to provide an explanation and not the failure to give evidence as such.77 It should be made plain that it is a comment which the jury are free to disregard.78 It should be placed in its proper

74. RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3 at [34] per Gaudron ACJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ. In this case, the majority accepted that only the appellant knew what he meant by saying (if he did) that “everything else [the complainant] said is true” (an alleged partial admission). However, they then stated (at [39]): “Even if the evidence of the alleged partial admission were said to require the jury to infer that the appellant meant by his statement, this was not a case in which it was reasonable to expect some denial, explanation or answer by the accused about the alleged partial admission. It is essential to recall that the appellant was charged with eight counts and that there were, therefore, in effect eight different cases which he had to meet. The alleged admission was, at its highest, an admission to some only of the charges alleged against him. That being so, there was no basis for saying that the appellant should reasonably be expected to answer the part of the prosecution case which related to those counts by giving evidence. Once in the witness box the appellant would have been exposed to examination about all of the counts charged and the course which he took must be understood in that light. In particular, he was entitled to say in respect of any one of the charges that the proof by the prosecution was insufficient and, if that were so, no conclusion could safely be reached for his not giving evidence beyond the conclusion that he was content to rest on the need for the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each of the allegations it made.” 75. R v D (1997) 45 NSWLR 744; 98 A Crim R 151 at 753 (NSWLR) per Gleeson CJ. It should be noted, however, that in significant respects, this decision was overruled by the judgment of the High Court in RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3. 76. RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3, Gaudron ACJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ at [42]. This view was confirmed in Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 at [52]. 77. See Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 at [65]–[66]. 78. See Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 at [67].

124

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.20.240]

context by identifying the facts that are said to call for an explanation.79 The judge should remind the jury that the defendant is not bound to give evidence, that there may have been many reasons why he or she did not do so (and the jury should not speculate about those reasons), and that the onus remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.80 Adequate directions should also be given to the jury that the fact that the accused does not give evidence is not an admission, does not fill gaps in the prosecution’s proofs and is not to be used as a make-weight.81

[EA.20.210]

Comment by another defendant on the failure of the defendant to give evidence (s 20(2))

Another defendant may comment on the failure of the defendant to give evidence. There is no express prohibition on any comment which “suggest[s] that the defendant failed to give evidence because the defendant was, or believed that he or she was, guilty of the offence concerned”. It is not clearly resolved whether the substantial limitations imposed by fundamental accusatorial principles on judicial comment also apply in some way to comment by a co-defendant. Observations by the majority of the High Court in Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 strongly suggest that they do not (at [54] per Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ): If only one of two accused persons gives evidence at their joint trial, it is inevitable that the accused who has given evidence will want to urge the jury to contrast that with the course taken by the other accused. It is well-nigh inevitable that in urging that the evidence given by the accused demonstrates innocence, the suggestion will be made, explicitly or implicitly, that the co-accused stayed silent because, unlike the accused who did give evidence, he or she was guilty.

However, in R v Tran (2006) 96 SASR 8; 164 A Crim R 541; [2006] SASC 276 the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal held (in a non-UEL jurisdiction) that another defendant (or his or her legal representative) should not be permitted to make a submission that would, if said by the judge, be a prohibited comment under common law principles: Duggan J at [43], Sulan and David JJ agreeing. If such a submission is made, it should be corrected by the trial judge (at [44]).

[EA.20.240]

“comment on a failure to give evidence by” a spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant (s 20(3), (4))

The terms “de facto partner”, “parent” and “child” are defined in the dictionary: see also [EA.18.60]. The Act distinguishes comment by the judge, the prosecutor and a co-defendant on the failure to give evidence by a spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant (in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence): 79. See Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 at [67]. at [67]. 80. Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; 68 A Crim R 251; [1993] HCA 65 at 235 (CLR) per Brennan and Toohey JJ. See also RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3 at [15] and [43] per Gaudron ACJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ. 81. See Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; 119 A Crim R 8; [2001] HCA 25 at [67]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

125

[EA.20.270]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

• the prosecutor is generally prohibited from commenting (see [EA.20.270]); • the judge may comment but “must not suggest that the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child failed to give evidence because the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned or the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child believed that the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned” (see [EA.20.300]); • “another defendant in the proceeding” may comment (see [EA.20.330]). Under s 20(5), if another person “being tried together” with a defendant “for an indictable offence” comments on the failure of the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of the defendant to give evidence, the judge may comment on that comment (but is still bound by the prohibition in s 20(4)).

[EA.20.270]

Comment by prosecutor on the failure of a spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant to give evidence (s 20(3), (4))

The prosecutor may not “comment” on a failure of a spouse, de facto partner (see [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120]), parent or child of a defendant to give evidence. The word “comment” is not defined. It has been given a meaning similar to that given in respect of comment on the failure of the defendant to give evidence (see [EA.20.150]) – any statement which directly or indirectly suggests that such a person could have given evidence and did not do so.82 However, it would not be a prohibited comment if what was said only related to the failure of the prosecution to call the person as a witness. It must suggest, directly or indirectly, that the defence could have called the person as a witness.83

[EA.20.300]

Comment by the judge on the failure of a spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant to give evidence (s 20(3), (4))

Under s 20(3) the judge may “comment” on the failure of a spouse, de facto partner (see [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120]), parent or child of a defendant to give evidence, although, under s 20(4), such a comment “must not suggest that the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of the defendant failed to give evidence because” the defendant was guilty or that person believed the defendant was guilty. There is no doubt that a judge may make a comment on the failure of the defence to call any person as a witness for the defence by warning the jury against adopting an impermissible chain of reasoning. In Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285; 76 ALJR 1552; [2002] HCA 45, Gaudron and Hayne JJ observed at [15]: 82. DJF v The Queen (2011) 205 A Crim R 412; [2011] NSWCCA 6, Giles JA at [3] (RA Hulme J agreeing). See also R v Gardner (2001) 123 A Crim R 439; [2001] NSWCCA 381; R v Noonan [2002] NSWCCA 150. 83. See DJF v The Queen (2011) 205 A Crim R 412; [2011] NSWCCA 6, Giles JA at [3]–[4] (RA Hulme J agreeing).

126

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.20.300]

[W]here there is evidence that there may be persons who could have, but have not, given relevant evidence, it is almost always desirable to tell the jury that they may not speculate about what those witnesses might have said but must decide the case only on the evidence that has been led.

Such a direction should be given when “it is possible that the jury might think that evidence could have been, but was not, given or called by the accused” (at [5]). Presumably, directions pointing out that the person was not bound to give evidence, that there may have been many reasons why he or she did not do so (and the jury should not speculate about those reasons), that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the jury should draw no inference from the person not having given evidence, would also be appropriate and may be essential to ensure a fair trial. As to the scope of permissible adverse comment, it is now clear that the common law principles applicable in respect of the failure of the defence in a criminal trial to call any particular person to give evidence (not just a spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of the defendant) significantly constrain permissible judicial comment: see [EA.55.180]. In those cases where an adverse inference is open, the principles applicable in civil proceedings to the failure of a party to call particular evidence, where such evidence would reasonably have been expected (see [EA.55.180]), would apply. However, great caution in the making of judicial comment would be required, for similar reasons as the need for caution when adverse comment may be made about the failure of the defendant to give evidence (see [EA.20.180]). Further, as Street CJ explained in R v Buckland [1977] 2 NSWLR 452 at 459: In criminal proceedings … the making of a comment or the indication of the available inference will be attended by a marked degree of caution, inasmuch as in many cases the absence of a witness either for the Crown or the accused might well be explicable upon grounds not readily capable of proof.84

It follows that, if any adverse comment is to be made on the failure of the one or other of these persons to give evidence, it may be that considerable, and complex, guidance to the jury will be required.85 The prohibition in s 20(4) that a comment “must not suggest that the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of the defendant failed to give evidence because” the defendant was guilty or that person believed the defendant was guilty, would require careful consideration, bearing in mind the view of the majority of the High Court in RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3 at [19] that a judicial comment to the jury that they were “entitled to conclude, from the accused’s election not to deny or contradict [certain prosecution] evidence that his evidence would not have assisted him in this trial” was in breach of the comparable prohibition in s 20(2) (since “any belief which the appellant held, that his evidence would not have assisted him in his trial, could proceed only from a 84. This caution has been emphasised in subsequent decisions: R v Newland (1997) 98 A Crim R 455; R v Taufua [1999] NSWCCA 205; R v Scott (2002) 112 A Crim R 543; [2000] NSWCCA 187. 85. See also R v Newland (1997) 98 A Crim R 455 at 461–462 per Gleeson CJ; R v Taufua [1999] NSWCCA 205 at [44]–[51] per Carruthers AJ; R v Scott (2002) 112 A Crim R 543; [2000] NSWCCA 187; R v Noonan [2002] NSWCCA 150. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

127

[EA.20.330]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

belief that he was guilty; that is, it could proceed only from a belief that he could not deny or contradict at least some of what had been said against him”).

[EA.20.330]

Comment by another defendant on the failure of a spouse, de facto partner, parent or child of a defendant to give evidence (s 20(3), (4))

Another defendant may comment on a failure of a spouse, de facto partner (see [EA.Dict.Pt.2.120]), parent or child of a defendant to give evidence. There is no express prohibition on any comment which “suggest[s] that the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child failed to give evidence because the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned or the spouse, de facto partner, parent or child believed that the defendant was guilty of the offence concerned”. Presumably, the content of permissible comment will be influenced by authority relating to the comparable situation of comment on the failure of the defendant to give evidence (see [EA.20.210]).

[EA.20.360]

Judicial comment on comment by persons “tried together for an indictable offence” (s 20(5))

This provision permits a judge to comment on any comment made86 by persons who are co-defendants to the same indictable offence as a defendant. It follows that the provision does not apply if the co-defendant is being tried for a different offence (or offences), no matter how related. Where a judge is permitted to comment in accordance with this provision, it may be anticipated that the comment should be designed to ameliorate the impact of any adverse comment made by the co-defendant(s).

[EA.20.390]

Comment generally on the failure of the defence to adduce evidence

This provision deals with comment on the failure to give evidence by a defendant or the spouse, de-facto partner, parent or child of a defendant (in a criminal proceeding for an indictable offence). As regards comment on the failure of the defence to adduce other evidence, common law principles apply: see [EA.55.180].

[EA.20.420]

Other provisions: Victoria

As the Note in the Victorian Act states, Div 6 of Pt 4 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 contains provisions relating to the failure to give evidence or call a witness that apply in criminal trials. The position may be summarised as follows: (1) failure of accused to give evidence or call a particular witness (i) Section 42 provides that “the trial judge, the prosecution and defence counsel (or, if the accused is unrepresented, the accused) must not say, or suggest in any way, to the jury that” the jury may: (a) conclude that the accused is guilty from that fact; or 86. Under s 20(2) in relation to a defendant, or under s 20(3) in relation to a spouse, parent or child of a defendant.

128

Uniform Evidence Law

s 20

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.20.420]

(b) use the failure of the accused to provide an explanation of facts, which must be within the knowledge of the accused, to more safely draw an adverse inference based on those facts which, if drawn, would prove the guilt of the accused; or (c) draw an inference that the accused did not give evidence or call a witness (as the case requires) because that would not have assisted his or her case.

This prohibition applies generally and there is no provision in the Act qualifying it. Accordingly, it has the effect of overturning the common law principle that “rare and exceptional” circumstances may arise where the reasoning in Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; 68 A Crim R 251; [1993] HCA 65 would justify some adverse comment (see Note 1 to s 44)87. If a party breaches the prohibition in this provision, the trial judge must “correct” the “statement or suggestion” (s 7). However, s 7(2) provides that the trial judge need not correct the statement or suggestion “if there are good reasons for not doing so” and gives the example of where “counsel has already corrected a prohibited statement or suggestion at the invitation of the trial judge”. (ii) Section 41 provides that defence counsel may request under s 12 that the trial judge give the jury a direction which “must explain” a number of matters specified in 41(2): (a) the prosecution’s obligation to prove that the accused is guilty; and (b) that the accused is not required to give evidence or call a witness (as the case requires); and (c) that the jury should not guess or speculate about what might have been contained in the evidence; and (d) that the fact that the accused did not give evidence or call a witness (as the case requires)— (i) is not evidence against the accused; and (ii) is not an admission by the accused; and (iii) must not be used to fill gaps in the evidence adduced by the prosecution; and (iv) does not strengthen the prosecution case.

Section 14(1) requires the trial judge to give the “requested direction unless there are good reasons for not doing so” (the same formulation as found in s 165B(3): see [EA.165B.240]). Section 14(2) specifies matters the trial judge must have regard to in determining whether there are such “good reasons”. It would also be material to consider the prohibition in s 42. In giving a direction to the jury, the trial judge need not use any particular form of words: s 6 (see also s 5(4)). However, the direction must not breach the prohibition in s 42 (see above). If there has been no request for a direction, s 15 provides that, “[s]ubject to section 16, the trial judge must not give the jury a direction”. Section 16 mandates a direction “if the trial judge considers that there are substantial and compelling reasons for giving the direction” (and certain procedural requirements are satisfied). Any rule of common law under which a trial judge is required to direct the jury regarding the failure of accused to give evidence or call a particular witness is abolished: s 44. 87. See Lowe v The Queen [2015] VSCA 327 at [210]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

129

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.2.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 20

(2) failure of prosecution to call or question a particular witness Section 43 provides that defence counsel may request under s 12 that the trial judge direct the jury on the fact that the prosecution failed to call or question a particular witness. Section 14(1) requires the trial judge to give the “requested direction unless there are good reasons for not doing so” (the same formulation as found in s 165B(3): see [EA.165B.240]). Section 14(2) specifies matters the trial judge must have regard to in determining whether there are such “good reasons”. However, s 43(2) provides that the trial judge may give that direction only if the trial judge is satisfied that the prosecution– (a) was reasonably expected to call or question the witness; and (b) has not satisfactorily explained why it did not call or question the witness.

As regards the term of the direction, the Act is not specific, subject to s 43(3) which provides that, in giving the direction, “the trial judge may inform the jury that it may conclude that the witness would not have assisted the prosecution’s case”. In giving a direction to the jury, the trial judge need not use any particular form of words: s 6 (see also s 5(4)). Presumably, the jury should also be directed that it cannot be inferred that the evidence not adduced “would have been unfavourable to the prosecution case” (see [EA.55.180]). Particular care will be needed in the giving of directions where the defence has the onus of proof in respect of a fact in issue. If there has been no request for a direction, s 15 provides that, “[s]ubject to section 16, the trial judge must not give the jury a direction”. Section 16 mandates a direction “if the trial judge considers that there are substantial and compelling reasons for giving the direction” (and certain procedural requirements are satisfied). Any rule of common law under which a trial judge is required to direct the jury regarding the failure of the prosecution to call or question a particular witness is abolished: s 44. Accordingly, the common law principles established in Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285; 76 ALJR 1552; [2002] HCA 45 (see [EA.55.180]) no longer apply.

DIVISION 2 – OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS DIVISION 2 – OATHS (NT ONLY)

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.2.30]

Summary of this Division

This Division deals with the general requirement that the evidence of witnesses and interpreters be sworn, either by taking an oath or making an affirmation. Section 13 in Div 1 deals with unsworn evidence from persons lacking competence to give sworn evidence. The traditional right of a defendant in criminal proceedings to make an unsworn statement immune from crossexamination has been abolished in all Australian jurisdictions.

130

Uniform Evidence Law

s 21

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.2.30]

Cth Act: 21

Sworn evidence of witnesses to be on oath or affirmation

(1) A witness in a proceeding must either take an oath, or make an affirmation, before giving evidence. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who gives unsworn evidence under section 13. [Subs (2) am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 9]

(3) A person who is called merely to produce a document or thing to the court need not take an oath or make an affirmation before doing so. (4) The witness is to take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in the Schedule or in a similar form. (5) Such an affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. [S 21 am Act 135 of 2008]

NSW Act: 21

Sworn evidence to be on oath or affirmation

(1) A witness in a proceeding must either take an oath, or make an affirmation, before giving evidence. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who gives unsworn evidence under section 13. [Subs (2) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[8]]

(3) A person who is called merely to produce a document or thing to the court need not take an oath or make an affirmation before doing so. (4) The witness is to take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in Schedule 1 or in a similar form. (5) Such an affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. [S 21 am Act 46 of 2007]

Vic Act: 21

Sworn evidence of witnesses to be on oath or affirmation

(1) A witness in a proceeding must either take an oath, or make an affirmation, before giving evidence. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who gives unsworn evidence under section 13. (3) A person who is called merely to produce a document or thing to the court need not take an oath or make an affirmation before doing so. (4) The witness is to take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in Schedule 1 or in a similar form. (5) Such an affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

131

[EA.21.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 21

ACT Act: 21

Sworn evidence of witnesses to be on oath or affirmation

(1) A witness in a proceeding must take an oath or make an affirmation before giving evidence. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who gives unsworn evidence under section 13 (Competence—lack of capacity). (3) A person who is called only to produce a document or thing to the court need not take an oath or make an affirmation before doing so. (4) The witness must take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in schedule 1 or in a similar form. (5) An affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. NT Act: 21

Evidence of witnesses to be on oath (1) A witness in a proceeding must take an oath before giving evidence.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who gives evidence otherwise than on oath under section 13. (3) A person who is called merely to produce a document or thing to the court need not take an oath. Note for section 21: This section departs from the corresponding provision in other jurisdictions because of the provisions in the Oaths, Affıdavits and Declarations Act.

[EA.21.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 26, s 29, paras 85–86; ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 571–574, 593.

[EA.21.60]

General comments

In general, a witness may choose to give evidence either on oath or on affirmation (see s 23). The court is to inform the witness of this choice (s 23(2)). However, unsworn evidence may be given under s 13(2) (see [EA.13.210]) and a person called merely to produce a document or thing need not take an oath or make an affirmation. In RJ v The Queen (2010) 208 A Crim R 174; [2010] NSWCCA 263, Campbell JA (Latham J and Price J agreeing) observed at [40] that s 21 permits only one exception to the requirement that a witness in a proceeding must either take an oath or make an affirmation before giving evidence – if the person “gives unsworn evidence under section 13”. It is possible to give unsworn evidence “under section 13” only if two separate conditions are satisfied and, if they are not satisfied, any unsworn evidence given by the witness will contravene this provision and, accordingly, will not legitimately be admitted (at [42]; see further discussion at [EA.13.210]).

132

Uniform Evidence Law

s 21

[EA.21.90]

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.21.210]

Taking an oath

There is no need to swear the oath on a religious text (see s 24(1)) nor is there any requirement of religious belief or understanding of “the nature and consequences of the oath” (see s 24(2)).

[EA.21.120]

Unsworn evidence (s 21(2))

A person who is not competent to give sworn evidence may give unsworn evidence if certain preconditions imposed in s 13 are satisfied (see [EA.13.210]).

[EA.21.150]

“in accordance with the appropriate form in [the Schedule/Schedule 1] or in a similar form” (s 21(4))

The Sch 1 (in the Commonwealth Act) and Sch 1 (in the NSW and Victorian Acts) include the following oath and affirmation: Oaths by witnesses I swear (or the person taking the oath may promise) by Almighty God (or the person may name a god recognised by his or her religion) that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Affirmations by witnesses I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Section 21(4) makes it clear that failure to strictly comply with the wording of the Schedule will not render the swearing invalid. In STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Bowen Basin Coal Group Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1002, Rares J considered whether an affidavit sworn in South Korea in accordance with the law of that country was one which satisfied the requirements of this provision. Applying common law authority, Rares J held at [13] that attestation before a notary public following the procedure required under South Korean law amounted to having made an affirmation “in a similar form” to that required in the Schedule because the attestation was performed “in circumstances that recognised the gravity and importance of the truth being told”.

[EA.21.180]

“called merely to produce a document or thing to the court” (s 21(3))

A person subpoenaed to produce a document or thing need not take an oath or make an affirmation before producing the document or thing, but will have to if he or she is to give evidence about the adequacy of steps taken to comply with the subpoena.

[EA.21.210]

Affidavits and written statements

There is authority that an affidavit must comply with the requirements of s 21.88 In Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (2002) 121 FCR 82; [2002] FCA 934 at 88. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc v Goulimis (2008) 253 ALR 76; [2008] FCA 1415 at [3]; STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Bowen Basin Coal Group Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1002; Micar Group Pty Ltd v Insul-Trade LLC [2010] NSWSC 1391 at [19]–[27] (although another statutory provision was held to permit receipt of the affidavit). See also Garning & Director-General, Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) [2012] FamCAFC 35 at [65][66]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

133

[EA.21.210]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 22

[26], Lindgren J held that s 21(1) applies even if the evidence of the witness is adduced in the form of a written statement – the statement must be sworn or affirmed. Presumably, if the witness gives sworn evidence that what is said in the written statement is true, presumably this would not be required.89 However, there is also authority that Pt 2.1 only applies to evidence given by witnesses in court. For discussion of this issue generally, see [EA.Ch 2.Pt 2.1.30].

Cth Act: 22

Interpreters to act on oath or affirmation

(1) A person must either take an oath, or make an affirmation, before acting as an interpreter in a proceeding. (2) The person is to take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in the Schedule or in a similar form. (3) Such an affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. NSW Act: 22

Interpreters to act on oath or affirmation

(1) A person must either take an oath, or make an affirmation, before acting as an interpreter in a proceeding. (1A) An oath taken, or an affirmation made, by a person before acting as an interpreter on a day is taken for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an oath taken or affirmation made by that person for the purposes of any subsequent proceedings in that court on that day in which the person acts as an interpreter. [Subs (1A) insrt Act 109 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1[1]]

(2) The person is to take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in Schedule 1 or in a similar form. (3) Such an affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. Note: The Commonwealth Act does not include subsection (1A). [S 22 am Act 109 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1[2]]

Vic Act: 22

Interpreters to act on oath or affirmation

(1) A person must either take an oath, or make an affirmation, before acting as an interpreter in a proceeding. (1A) An oath taken, or an affirmation made, by a person before acting as an interpreter on a day is taken for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an oath taken or affirmation made by that person for the purposes of any subsequent proceedings in that court on that day in which the person acts as an interpreter. (2) The person is to take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in Schedule 1 or in a similar form. 89. Compare LMI A/asia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 31; [2001] NSWSC 688 at [6] per Barrett J.

134

Uniform Evidence Law

s 22

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.22.90]

(3) Such an affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. Note: The Commonwealth Act does not include subsection (1A).

ACT Act: 22

Interpreters to act on oath or affirmation

(1) A person must take an oath or make an affirmation before acting as an interpreter in a proceeding. (2) An oath taken, or an affirmation made, by a person before acting as an interpreter on a day is taken for subsection (1) to be an oath taken or affirmation made by the person for the purposes of any subsequent proceeding in the court on the day the person acts as an interpreter. (3) The person must take the oath, or make the affirmation, in accordance with the appropriate form in schedule 1 or in a similar form. (4) An affirmation has the same effect for all purposes as an oath. Note: The Commonwealth Act does not include s (2).

NT Act: 22

Interpreters to act on oath

(1) A person must take an oath before acting as an interpreter in a proceeding. (1A) An oath taken by a person before acting as an interpreter on a day is taken for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an oath taken by that person for the purposes of any subsequent proceedings in that court on that day in which the person acts as an interpreter. Notes for section 22: 1 The Commonwealth Act does not include subsection (1A). 2 This section departs from the corresponding provision in other jurisdictions because of the provisions in the Oaths, Affıdavits and Declarations Act.

[EA.22.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 26; ALRC 26, vol 1, para 613.

[EA.22.60]

Differences between provisions

The Commonwealth provision does not include s 22(1A), which was introduced into the NSW provision by the Evidence Legislation Act Amendment Act 2001 (NSW) and included in the Victorian Evidence Act 2008. Subsection (2) in the Commonwealth Act refers to “the Schedule” while the NSW and Victorian Acts refer to “Schedule 1”. However, the content of the Schedules is identical.

[EA.22.90]

“in accordance with the appropriate form in [the Schedule/Schedule 1] or in a similar form” (s 22(2))

The Schedule/Schedule 1 includes an oath and an affirmation for interpreters. Section 22(2) ensures that failure to strictly comply with the wording of the Schedule will not render the swearing invalid. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

135

[EA.22.90]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 23

Cth Act: 23

Choice of oath or affirmation

(1) A person who is to be a witness or act as an interpreter in a proceeding may choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation. (2) The court is to inform the person that he or she has this choice. (3) The court may direct a person who is to be a witness to make an affirmation if: (a) the person refuses to choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation; or (b) it is not reasonably practicable for the person to take an appropriate oath. NSW Act: 23

Choice of oath or affirmation

(1) A person who is to be a witness or act as an interpreter in a proceeding may choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation. (2) The court is to inform the person that he or she has this choice, unless the court is satisfied that the person has already been informed or knows that he or she has the choice. [Subs (2) am Act 109 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1[3]]

(3) The court may direct a person who is to be a witness to make an affirmation if: (a) the person refuses to choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation, or (b) it is not reasonably practicable for the person to take an appropriate oath. Note: Subsection (2) differs from section 23 of the Commonwealth Act. [S 23 am Act 109 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1[4]]

Vic Act: 23

Choice of oath or affirmation

(1) A person who is to be a witness or act as an interpreter in a proceeding may choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation. (2) The court is to inform the person that he or she has this choice, unless the court is satisfied that the person has already been informed or knows that he or she has the choice. (3) The court may direct a person who is to be a witness to make an affirmation if— (a) the person refuses to choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation; or (b) it is not reasonably practicable for the person to take an appropriate oath. 136

Uniform Evidence Law

s 23

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.23.90]

Note: Subsection (2) differs from section 23 of the Commonwealth Act.

ACT Act: 23

Choice of oath or affirmation

(1) A person who is to be a witness or act as an interpreter in a proceeding may choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation. (2) The court must tell the person that the person has this choice, unless the court is satisfied that the person has already been told or knows about having the choice. (3) The court may direct a person who is to be a witness to make an affirmation if— (a) the person refuses to choose whether to take an oath or make an affirmation; or (b) it is not reasonably practicable for the person to take an appropriate oath. Note: Subsection (2) differs from the Commonwealth Act, s 23.

NT Act: 23

Choice of oath or affirmation

Note for section 23: This section is not needed because of the provisions in the Oaths, Affıdavits and Declarations Act.

[EA.23.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, paras 85–86; ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 265, 566, 569.

[EA.23.60]

Differences between provisions

The Commonwealth provision does not include the words after “choice” in s 23(2) of the NSW/Victorian provisions, which were introduced into the NSW provision by the Evidence Legislation Act Amendment Act 2001 (NSW) and included in the Victorian Evidence Act 2008. The ACT provision is substantially to the same effect as the NSW/Victorian provision.

[EA.23.90]

General comments

It must not be suggested that evidence by way of affirmation is inferior to evidence on oath.90 Moreover, different religious beliefs concerning the making of oaths must be respected.91 However, that would not preclude crossexamination of a witness who professes religious beliefs regarding why, given his beliefs, he had not given evidence on oath.92

90. Werden v The Queen [2015] VSCA 72 at [37]. 91. Werden v The Queen [2015] VSCA 72 at [37]. 92. Werden v The Queen [2015] VSCA 72, Osborn JA (Ashley JA agreeing) at [37]. See also Priest JA at [126]–[129]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

137

[EA.23.120]

[EA.23.120]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 24

“not reasonably practicable for the person to take an appropriate oath”

The tenets of a particular religious faith may make it not reasonably practicable to take an appropriate oath.93

Cth Act: 24

Requirements for oaths (1) It is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath.

(2) An oath is effective for the purposes of this Division even if the person who took it: (a) did not have a religious belief or did not have a religious belief of a particular kind; or (b) did not understand the nature and consequences of the oath. NSW Act: 24

Requirements for oaths (1) It is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath.

(2) An oath is effective for the purposes of this Division even if the person who took it: (a) did not have a religious belief or did not have a religious belief of a particular kind, or (b) did not understand the nature and consequences of the oath. Vic Act: 24

Requirements for oaths (1) It is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath.

(2) An oath is effective for the purposes of this Division even if the person who took it— (a) did not have a religious belief or did not have a religious belief of a particular kind; or (b) did not understand the nature and consequences of the oath. ACT Act: 24

Requirements for oaths (1) It is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath. (2) An oath is effective for this division even if the person who took it— (a) did not have a religious belief or did not have a religious belief of a particular kind; or (b) did not understand the nature and consequences of the oath.

93. R v Kemble (1990) 91 Cr App R 178 at 179–180; BZAAG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 217 at [16]–[24].

138

Uniform Evidence Law

s 24A

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.24.60]

NT Act: 24

Requirements for oaths

Note for section 24: This section is not needed because of the provisions in the Oaths, Affıdavits and Declarations Act.

[EA.24.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 26, paras 85–86; ALRC 26, vol 1, para 575.

[EA.24.60]

General comments

This provision has the effect that evidence is still to be regarded as “sworn” even if common law requirements for taking an “oath” are not satisfied. It also has the effect that s 13 deals exclusively with issues of witness competence (unaffected by common law principles relating to the understanding of the nature and consequences of taking an oath).

NSW Act: 24A

Alternative oath

(1) A person may take an oath even if the person’s religious or spiritual beliefs do not include a belief in the existence of a god. (2) Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, the form of oath taken by a person: (a) need not include a reference to a god, and (b) may instead refer to the basis of the person’s beliefs in accordance with a form prescribed by the regulations. Note: The Commonwealth Act does not include an equivalent provision to section 24A. [S 24A insrt Act 109 of 2001, s 3 and Sch 1[5]]

Vic Act: 24A

Alternative oath

(1) A person may take an oath even if the person’s religious or spiritual beliefs do not include a belief in the existence of a god. (2) Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, the form of oath taken by a person— (a) need not include a reference to a god; and (b) may instead refer to the basis of the person’s beliefs in accordance with a form prescribed by the regulations. Note: The Commonwealth Act does not include an equivalent provision to section 24A.

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

139

[EA.24A.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 24A

ACT Act: 24A

Alternative oath

(1) A person may take an oath even if the person’s religious or spiritual beliefs do not include a belief in the existence of a god. (2) Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, the form of oath taken by a person— (a) need not include a reference to a god; and (b) may instead refer to the basis of the person’s beliefs in accordance with a form prescribed by regulation. Note: The Commonwealth Act does not include an equivalent provision to s 24A.

[EA.24A.30]

General comments

Only the NSW, Victorian and NT Acts contain this provision. It was not recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The provision was introduced into the NSW Act by the Evidence Legislation Act Amendment Act 2001 (NSW).

Cth Act: 25

Rights to make unsworn statements unaffected [Repealed]

[S 25 rep Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 2 item 6]

NSW Act: 25

Rights to make unsworn statements unaffected

Note: The Commonwealth Act includes a provision preserving any right of a defendant under the law of a State or Territory to make an unsworn statement. The right to make an unsworn statement remains in Norfolk Island.

Vic Act: 25

Rights to make unsworn statements unaffected

Note: The Commonwealth Act previously included a provision that preserved any right that an accused in a criminal proceeding had under a law of a State or Territory to make an unsworn statement.

NT Act: 25

Rights to make unsworn statements unaffected

Note for section 25: The Commonwealth Act formerly included a provision that preserves any right that a defendant in a criminal proceeding has under a law of a State or Territory to make an unsworn statement. That provision has now been repealed.

[EA.25.30]

General comments

The traditional right of a defendant in criminal proceedings to make an unsworn statement immune from cross-examination has been abolished in all Australian jurisdictions.

140

Uniform Evidence Law

s 26

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30]

DIVISION 3 – GENERAL RULES ABOUT GIVING EVIDENCE

[EA.Ch.2.Pt.2.2.Div.3.30]

Summary of this Division

This Division deals with procedural rules relating to the adducing of evidence from witnesses in a proceeding. Section 11 in Pt 1.2 of the Act recognises that the general power of a court to control the conduct of proceedings continues, subject to the operation of the Act. However, s 26 specifically gives a court power in relation to a number of aspects of the questioning of witnesses. Section 28 deals with the order of examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination. Sections 29 – 31 deal with various ways of giving evidence (including in narrative form and through an interpreter). Procedures for a witness attempting to revive memory in court are contained in s 32 (and special rules for police officers in s 33). Some regulation of attempts to revive memory outside court is found in s 34. Calling for documents, and their inspection, is dealt with in ss 35 – 36.

Cth Act: 26

Court’s control over questioning of witnesses The court may make such orders as it considers just in relation to: (a) the way in which witnesses are to be questioned; and (b) the production and use of documents and things in connection with the questioning of witnesses; and (c) the order in which parties may question a witness; and (d) the presence and behaviour of any person in connection with the questioning of witnesses.

NSW Act: 26

Court’s control over questioning of witnesses The court may make such orders as it considers just in relation to: (a) the way in which witnesses are to be questioned, and (b) the production and use of documents and things in connection with the questioning of witnesses, and (c) the order in which parties may question a witness, and (d) the presence and behaviour of any person in connection with the questioning of witnesses.

Vic Act: 26

Court’s control over questioning of witness The court may make such orders as it considers just in relation to— (a) the way in which witnesses are to be questioned; and (b) the production and use of documents and things in connection with the questioning of witnesses; and (c) the order in which parties may question a witness; and (d) the presence and behaviour of any person in connection with the questioning of witnesses.

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

141

[EA.26.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 26

ACT Act: 26

Court’s control over questioning of witnesses The court may make the orders it considers just in relation to— (a) the way in which witnesses are to be questioned; and (b) the production and use of documents and things in connection with the questioning of witnesses; and (c) the order in which parties may question a witness; and (d) the presence and behaviour of any person in connection with the questioning of witnesses.

NT Act: 26

Court’s control over questioning of witness The court may make such orders as it considers just in relation to: (a) the way in which witnesses are to be questioned; and (b) the production and use of documents and things in connection with the questioning of witnesses; and (c) the order in which parties may question a witness; and (d) the presence and behaviour of any person in connection with the questioning of witnesses.

[EA.26.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 30, paras 107–108.

[EA.26.60]

General comments

The ALRC did not propose a general statement of this nature as to the power of a court to control proceedings, the presentation of evidence or the questioning of witnesses. This was deemed unnecessary given the recognition in s 11 of the general power of a court to control the conduct of proceedings, subject to the operation of the Act. Section 26 is presumably premised on the assumption that some general statement of those powers is desirable. Curiously, the section is not prefaced with an express statement that the powers accorded under the section are subject to the rest of the Act (including the more specific provisions dealing with particular aspects of the questioning of witnesses). However, it is arguable that the section should be interpreted in that way94 and it has been held that “it must be construed having regard, inter alia, to the limited waiver power in s 190”.95 It has also been held that neither this provision nor s 11 create a general power to control the manner of giving evidence in the sense of a power which is not

94. A general principle of statutory construction is that, where there is conflict between general and specific provisions, the specific provisions prevail (generalia specialibus non derogant). The contrary view is that the other provisions are a prima facie guide to the exercise of the general power. 95. Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd v Parnell Transport Industries Pty Ltd (1998) 88 FCR 537; 159 ALR 477 at 543 per Mansfield J.

142

Uniform Evidence Law

s 26

Part 2.1 - Witnesses 96

subject to the principles of natural justice a party to adduce admissible evidence.97

[EA.26.120]

nor do they circumscribe the right of

Other legislation affects the way in which evidence is given by witnesses. For example, legislation in NSW and Victoria permits the evidence of children in certain types of proceedings to be given by way of closed-circuit television facilities or by means of any other similar technology and permits the evidence-in-chief of child witnesses to be given in criminal proceedings substantially by way of the playing of a videotape of an interview between the witness and a police officer. Some of those provisions are discussed below (see [EA.27.180], [EA 28.150], [EA 41.330]). There is no doubt that, if for some reason such a provision does not strictly apply, the procedure may be adopted pursuant to the general power conferred by this provision.98

[EA.26.90]

“witness”

The term “witness” is defined in the Dictionary to include the meaning given in cl 7 in Pt 2 of the Dictionary: 7(1) A reference in this Act to a witness includes a reference to a party giving evidence. (2) A reference in this Act to a witness who has been called by a party to give evidence includes a reference to the party giving evidence. (3) A reference in this section to a party includes a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

[EA.26.120]

Calling a witness by the court

It has been held that the “wide powers” given by this provision to a court include a power to call witnesses.99 This is a very broad interpretation of the provision, which seems to be concerned with what is to happen to witnesses after they have been called. In Sharp v Rangott [2008] FCAFC 45, Besanko J at [48] rejected such authority, observing that “the powers conferred by s 26 extend only to those persons who have been called to give evidence by a party or by the judge in the exercise of a power at general law or under another statute” (the other members of the Court did not disagree with this analysis). Nevertheless, it appears clear that the court may call a witness, in appropriate circumstances, given the court’s general power to control the proceedings: s 11. Existing common law constraints on courts would presumably continue to apply (see also [EA.27.120]). Under the traditional common law approach, as a general rule the parties alone call evidence.100 It is rare for courts to intervene in the decision of parties as to the 96. See R v Too (unreported, NSW SC, Badgery-Parker J, 26 July 1996). 97. Finchill Pty Ltd v Abdel-Messih (unreported, NSW SC, Levine J, 13 July 1998); Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21 at [42]–[44]. 98. See, for example, R v Hines (No 2) (2014) 242 A Crim R 316; [2014] NSWSC 990. 99. Milano Investments Pty Ltd v Group Developers Pty Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 13 May 1997). Compare this decision with the approach taken in R v Too (unreported, NSW SC, Badgery-Parker J, 26 July 1996). 100. See Clark Equipment Credit of Australia Ltd v Como Factors Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 552 at 567–568 per Powell J. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

143

[EA.26.150]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 26

101

order in which witnesses are called. In criminal proceedings, the trial judge may only call a witness in “most exceptional circumstances”.102 A similar approach has been adopted in civil proceedings.103 Thus, in Sharp v Rangott [2008] FCAFC 45, Besanko J stated at [52]: It was correctly accepted by the parties that at common law the exercise of the power is reserved only for the most exceptional cases and that it would be regarded as highly unusual for a judge to call a witness in a proceeding.

Justice Besanko discussed at length what circumstances might be regarded as “most exceptional” (at [53]–[70]). However, it should be noted that Gray and North JJ stated at [3]: [W]e do not necessarily accept that the common law power is constrained by the principle that Besanko J derives from the earlier authorities. In an age in which the focus of common law courts on ascertaining the truth is increasing, and the gap between the approaches of the common law courts and the “inquisitorial” courts of the Roman law/Napoleonic systems is perceived to be much narrower than previously supposed, we prefer not to express a view that would anchor the exercise of the discretionary power in the particular view of the adversarial system identified by his Honour.

Various court rules would impact on the common law principles. For example, a number of court rules permit the appointment of experts on the court’s own motion.104

[EA.26.150]

“the way in which witnesses are to be questioned”

As O’Ryan J stated in LGM v CAM [2008] FamCA 185 at [199]: [I]t is the trial judge’s duty to ensure all parties have a fair trial. Most relevantly, the trial judge must so exercise his [or her] discretion in and about the examination and cross examination of witnesses so that a fair trial is assured.

The common law may offer some guidance. In general, a witness called by a party can be cross-examined by another party on any matter relevant to an issue in the proceedings.105 An example of a situation where the power conferred in this provision might be utilised is in a civil case where a number of parties have the same interest.106 The court may order that one party cross-examine on behalf of all or allow the others to cross-examine only upon matters not already 101. See Briscoe v Briscoe [1968] P 501; Bond v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1988) 19 FCR 494; 84 ALR 646 at 514 (FCR) per Wilcox J. 102. R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; 15 A Crim R 88 at 575 (CLR). 103. Re Enoch and Zaretzky, Bock & Co Arbitration [1910] 1 KB 327; Obacelo Pty Ltd v Taveraft Pty Ltd(1986) 10 FCR 518 at 536–540; Clark Equipment Credit of Australia Ltd v Como Factors Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 552 at 567–568 per Powell J. 104. Federal Court Rules, O 34; NSW Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 31, Div 2, Subdiv 5. 105. Prentice v Cummins (No 6) (2003) 203 ALR 449; [2003] FCA 1002 at [25]–[28] per Sackville J. 106. Hadid v Australis Media Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 5 November 1996). However, Sperling J considered that the power in this regard derived from s 11. See also NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd [No 8] (1999) 161 ALR 581 at [16] per Lindgren J; Lakatoi v Walker [1999] NSWSC 1088; Cheers v El Davo Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] FCA 144 at [15]–[16] per Weinberg J; Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 6) [2014] FCA 804 at [28]–[33].

144

Uniform Evidence Law

s 26

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.26.150]

107

canvassed. There is a rule of practice, designed to prevent oppression of witnesses, preventing two counsel from cross-examining the one witness, although the common law rule is subject to reasonable exceptions.108 Where a party calls another party as a witness, the court may determine the order in which questioning of the party/witness may occur (see s 26(c)) and whether the questioning should be treated as examination-in-chief or cross-examination.109 In Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (2002) 121 FCR 82; [2002] FCA 934 at [27], Lindgren J held that, in an appropriate case, a court might permit witnesses to stand or sit as a group while testifying, and might permit those members of a group who are to testify all to be sworn at the outset and counsel for the party who calls them to question them, switching from one to another, rather than questioning one witness to conclusion before questioning the next one. However, he could not “conceive of circumstances in which the Court would require the cross-examiner to do likewise: the cross-examiner should be allowed to question each witness to conclusion in the usual way”. Similarly, it has been held, as under the common law, that a court should not place arbitrary time limits on cross-examination,110 although it would be permissible to impose a time limit on further cross-examination after it had proceeded for some time with little effect.111 In LGM v CAM [2008] FamCA 185, O’Ryan J summarised the applicable principles in respect of not permitting cross-examination of a witness at [207]–[208]: Cross-examination is the testing of a witness as to the facts in issue or credit. There is no right of cross-examination and it is permitted by a Judge in the exercise of his or her discretion to ensure that parties have a fair trial. A witness that is called to give evidence may be cross-examined. In general, the party or the legal representative of the party may cross-examine a witness not called by that party. It is not necessary that the

107. GPI Leisure Corp Ltd v Herdsman Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) (1990) 20 NSWLR 15. 108. Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Brendas [2010] FCAFC 125, 273 ALR 601 at [44]–[45]. The Full Court of the Federal Court held that a trial judge had erred in refusing leave to a junior counsel continuing cross-examination of a witness after the senior counsel had ceased to act, where junior counsel “undertook not to ask questions on any topic that his leader had dealt with” (at [41]). The Court held that such an undertaking “was sufficient to ensure that [the witness] was not burdened by unfair cross-examination” (at [46]). There was no need to establish “special circumstances” to justify a departure from the general rule (at [47]). The Court pointed out at [49] that s 41(1)(b) may be utilised to implement this common law principle. Reference was also made to s 40 (see [EA.41.150]). 109. NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd [No 8] (1999) 161 ALR 581 at [15] per Lindgren J (referring to Tedeschi v Singh [1948] 1 Ch 319). 110. JD v Director-General of Department of Youth & Community Services [1998] NSWSC 353. Black AJ emphasised the following passage from the High Court judgment in Wakeley v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 321 at 325: “The limits of cross-examination are not susceptible of precise definition, for a connection between a fact elicited by cross-examination and a fact in issue may appear, if at all, only after other pieces of evidence are forthcoming. … Although it is important in the interests of the administration of justice that cross-examination be contained within reasonable limits, a judge should allow counsel some leeway in cross-examination in order that counsel may perform the duty, where counsel’s instructions warrant it, of testing the evidence given by an opposing witness.” 111. For an example of a judge imposing a time limit on further cross-examination after having allowed it to proceed for some time, where the judge was “satisfied that there will be no unfairness … in limiting [further] cross-examination”, see Thomas v SMP International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 900. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

145

[EA.26.180]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 26

witness has given evidence against the party seeking to cross-examine. It is permissible to ask leading questions in cross-examination but there is no absolute right... The Court has a wide discretion to decide whether or not permission will be granted to cross-examine witnesses. There is no right to cross-examine witnesses in the course of a hearing, but rather the right of all parties to a fair trial.

The provision has been given a broad application. Thus, for example, in R v Hines (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 990 it was utilised to permit a witness to give evidence by the playing in court of a pre-recorded interview, before being questioned through a closed circuit television facility. While it might be doubted whether s 26(a) could go so far, that question has no practical significance given the general powers of a court to control its proceedings, specifically preserved by s 11(1). In respect of intervention in the questioning of a witness, the existing common law position is that, in the absence of objection by counsel for any other party, the trial judge should only intervene if there is good reason.112 The power to do so should be exercised with circumspection and should rarely be exercised merely because it appears to the judge that the question calls for an answer which is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible.113 The Act assumes the continued existence of the adversary system: see ALRC 26, vol 1, para 64. Thus, the circumstances in which a question may be rejected without objection are very limited.114 Similarly, adversarial principles would ordinarily preclude the court from requiring a party to adduce particular evidence or ask a particular question although a judge may, in appropriate circumstances, admit evidence which has not been tendered by a party (see, eg, s 45(3)) or ask a question of a witness (see [EA.27.120]). Court Rules have imposed special procedures relating to expert reports and evidence. These Rules will have significant impact on the way in which the expert witness gives evidence (see [EA.26.300]).

[EA.26.180]

“the order in which parties may question a witness”

The court has a broad discretion in this regard. It may take into account efficiency considerations as well as fairness to the parties.115

[EA.26.210]

“the presence … of any person in connection with the questioning of witnesses”

The practice under the existing common law is for the court to order that all proposed witnesses, other than parties and expert witnesses, are to remain outside 112. R v Lars (1994) 73 A Crim R 91; R v Cunningham (1992) 61 A Crim R 412 (VicCCA). The principles elucidated in Lars have been adopted under the Evidence Act 1995: see R v RPS (unreported, NSW CCA, No 60583 of 1996, 13 August 1997), p 31 per Hunt CJ at CL. A trial judge may intervene to ensure that the trial is contained within reasonable limits. 113. Nevertheless, in practice, the judge may properly interrupt counsel and, in the absence of both the witness and the jury, inquire as to the relevance of the particular question or line of questioning. 114. For example, where a question is offensive or unfair (s 41), or a previous ruling is being flouted. 115. See NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd [No 8] (1999) 161 ALR 581 at [19]–[22] per Lindgren J.

146

Uniform Evidence Law

s 26

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.26.300]

the court until called to give evidence. Parties, while allowed to remain in court, will almost invariably testify before other witnesses are called.116

[EA.26.240]

“the court may make such orders …”

It has been argued that the making of an “order” under this provision requires consideration of the terms of s 192, which deals generally with a court giving “any leave, permission or direction” under this Act.117 The Court of Appeal (Beazley JA, Giles JA and Santow JA) did not need to determine this issue because it held that the orders made in that case were made under the general powers of the court preserved in s 11 (to which s 192 does not apply). However, subsequently in Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich [2006] 201 FLR 207; [2006] NSWSC 643, Austin J held at [9] that this provision is subject to s 192. This approach was followed by Jacobsen J in the Federal Court.118

[EA.26.270]

Evidence of a conversation

There is a rule of practice under the common law that evidence of conversations should, if possible, be given by a witness in direct speech.119 However, if the witness is unable to recall the actual words used, he or she may give evidence of the substance or effect of what was said.120 Pursuant to s 56, evidence from a witness of a conversation in indirect speech or as to the substance or effect of what was said will be admissible “except as otherwise provided by this Act” (see [EA.55.540]).

[EA.26.300]

Court Rules relating to expert evidence

The Federal Court,121 the Family Court,122 the ACT Supreme Court123 and the NSW Supreme Court124 have imposed procedures relating to expert reports and evidence. These Rules will have a significant impact on the way in which the expert witness gives evidence. For example, para 37 of the General Case 116. R v Lister [1981] 1 NSWLR 110. In RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; 74 ALJR 449; [2000] HCA 3 at [8]–[9] and [84], the High Court endorsed the view that a defendant in criminal proceedings does not have to be called first in the defence case but, if called after other witnesses have testified, “comment may be made that he has tailored his own evidence to fit in with theirs”. 117. Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419 at [1342]. 118. Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 113 114832) (No 2) [2007] FCA 121 at [7]–[8]. 119. Commonwealth v Riley (1987) 5 FCR 8 at 34; LMI A/asia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 31 at [8]–[9]; Hamilton-Smith v George [2006] FCA 1551 per Besanko J at [83]. 120. Hamilton-Smith v George [2006] FCA 1551 per Besanko J at [83]. 121. Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in Proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (see “Practice and Procedure in the Federal Court of Australia”, Vol 2, [69,750]). 122. Family Court Rules 2004 (Cth), Pt 15.5. 123. Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), Pt 2.12. 124. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 31.17 and 31.23; Sch 7; Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 75 r 3J (applying UCPR Sch 7). See also Barak Pty Ltd v WTH Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 649; Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia Pty Ltd v Cassegrain [2002] NSWSC 980. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

147

[EA.27.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 27

Management Practice Note for the Common Law Division of the NSW Supreme Court provides that “[a]ll expert evidence will be given concurrently unless there is a single expert appointed or the Court grants leave for expert evidence to be given in an alternate manner”. The experts are sworn together and a directed discussion of issues in dispute takes place, chaired by the judge.125 The experts are encouraged to ask and answer questions of each other.

Cth Act: 27

Parties may question witnesses A party may question any witness, except as provided by this Act.

NSW Act: 27

Parties may question witnesses A party may question any witness, except as provided by this Act.

Vic Act: 27

Parties may question witnesses A party may question any witness, except as provided by this Act.

ACT Act: 27

Parties may question witnesses Except as provided by this Act, a party may question any witness.

NT Act: 27

Parties may question witnesses A party may question any witness, except as provided by this Act.

[EA.27.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 31, para 111(a).

[EA.27.60]

General comments

If a witness refuses to submit himself or herself to cross-examination, the result may be that the court orders the evidence of the witness to be excluded or disregarded.126 If a party wishes to cross-examine a witness on matters in dispute in the proceeding and gives reasonable notice of its intention to do so, it is an incident of the court’s duty to provide a fair trial that, in general, that wish be respected127. However, the right to question a witness is subject to a number of matters, including the power of the court under s 11 to control its proceedings.128 It has been held that, in an interlocutory hearing, time may not permit there to be 125. See Halverson v Dobler [2006] NSWSC 1307; Attorney General (NSW) v Winters (2007) 176 A Crim R 249; [2007] NSWSC 1071. 126. See, for example, Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 339 at [13]. 127. Tarrant v Statewide Secured Investments Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 582, Katzmann J at [35]. 128. An example of a case where the right to cross-examine was overridden using s 11 (and the discretionary provisions) is Fexuto Pty Ltd v Bosnjak Holdings Pty Ltd [1998] NSWSC 293,

148

Uniform Evidence Law

s 27

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.27.120]

129

full or any cross-examination. Despite the general statement that a party to proceedings may question any witness in those proceedings, the remainder of the Act substantially controls the nature of that questioning, both by evidentiary rules (for example, s 40) and the conferral of discretion on the court (see, in particular, s 29(1)). In addition, other legislation may impose limits on the ability of a party to question a witness (see [EA.27.180]).

[EA.27.90]

“witness”

The term “witness” is defined in the Dictionary to include the meaning given in cl 7 of Pt 2 of the Dictionary: (1) A reference in this Act to a witness includes a reference to a party giving evidence. (2) A reference in this Act to a witness who has been called by a party to give evidence includes a reference to the party giving evidence. (3) A reference in this section to a party includes a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

[EA.27.120]

Questioning by court

This provision says nothing in regard to the calling or questioning of a witness by the trial judge. As to a court calling a witness, see [EA.26.120]. Under common law principles, as a general rule it is for the parties to question witnesses and the judge asks questions only to remove apparent ambiguities.130 These contraints apply particularly in criminal proceedings with a jury.131 As the Act assumes the continued existence of the adversary system of trial, the common law limitations continue to be applied.132 However, the traditional position has been changing in civil proceedings: where Young J held that he would admit certain affidavit evidence notwithstanding the unavailability of the deponent. However, Young J indicated that “when weighing up that evidence, I will have to discount it on the basis that the witness was not available for cross-examination”. 129. See Re C & C (1995) 20 Fam LR 24 at 32. 130. R v Olasiuk (1973) 6 SASR 255; R v Damic [1982] 2 NSWLR 750 (CCA) at 762–763 per Street CJ; Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 at 280–282 per Kirby ACJ. 131. See R v SY [2004] NSWCCA 297. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal referred at [14]–[15] to Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 675 and observed that “[i]t is imperative that the trial judge should not act in the role of prosecutor or appear to do so”. The court added that a “judge might quite properly bring to the prosecutor’s attention some matter which appears to have been overlooked but even this must be done with considerable care and, unless it is completely uncontroversial, in the absence of the jury”. In R v Thompson (2000) 130 A Crim R 24; [2002] NSWCCA 149 at [42], Ipp AJA observed: “[I]ntervention for the purpose of clarification does not necessarily require the judge to question the witness. The judge may readily achieve clarification by pointing out, at an appropriate time, usually in the absence of the jury, evidential ambiguities or obscurities to counsel. This is by far the most desirable course.” However, Ipp AJA acknowledged the right of the judge to ask questions for the purpose of clarification and also held (at [43]) that questions which go beyond clarification do not necessarily make the trial unfair. See also R v Mohammadi [2011] SASCFC 154 at [24]–[39]; R v L, GA [2015] SASCFC 166 at [4]–[7]. 132. R v Esposito (1998) 105 A Crim R 27; R v Thompson (2000) 130 A Crim R 24; [2002] NSWCCA 149; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Earl Burns [2010] NSWCA 265 at [28]–[29]; Werden v The Queen [2015] VSCA 72 at [45]–[52]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

149

[EA.27.150]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 27

In civil trials, in the last fifty years in New South Wales, it has become much more common for judges to take an active part in the conduct of cases than was at an earlier time the case. The growth of litigation, the increasing complexity of litigation, and the limited resources of courts and legal aid have made it inevitable that judges must, within reasonable limits, intervene wherever it is necessary to ensure that the issues are clarified and that justice is dispensed within reasonable limits of effıciency.133

A similar approach may be taken on criminal proceedings without a jury.134 As long as the questions are asked in a moderate manner, they may be asked “for the purpose of clarifying the evidence and understanding more precisely the issues at trial”.135

[EA.27.150]

Questioning by members of jury

This provision says nothing in regard to the questioning of a witness by a member of the jury. However, the trial judge may permit this given the court’s general power to control the proceedings: ss 11 and 26. Nevertheless, the existing common law position is that such is “undesirable”136 and, where permitted, any questions should be asked through the judge.137 This too can be controlled under ss 11 and 26.

[EA.27.180]

Other provisions

The effect of s 8 is that provisions in other legislation relating to the questioning of witnesses continue to apply. For example, s 294A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) prevents a self-represented defendant on trial for charges of sexual assault from personally asking questions of the complainant.138 Similarly, s 356 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) provides that a “protected witness”, as defined in s 354, “must not be cross-examined by the accused in person”. Specific provisions in both jurisdictions provide for special procedures to be adopted in relation to the questioning of particular vulnerable witnesses (such as child complainants in sexual assault prosecutions).

133. Whealy JA in FB v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 217 at [93]. See also Ryland v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 120 at [18]–[22]. 134. FB v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 217 at [90]–[110]. See also Lockwood v Police (2010) 107 SASR 237; [2010] SASC 120 at [17]; R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; 238 A Crim R 205; [2014] SASCFC 3 at [37]–[77], [93]–[94]. However, in Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Earl Burns [2010] NSWCA 265, in the context of a trial by a magistrate, the NSW Court of Appeal emphasised the proposition that “the task of destroying the credit of a defence witness should always be left by the judge to the Crown Prosecutor”: Beazley JA at [28]. See also R v Capaldo [2015] SASCFC 56 (sentencing proceedings). 135. Whealy JA in FB v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 217 at [109]–[110]. 136. See Lo Presti v The Queen (1994) 68 ALJR 477. 137. R v Pathare [1981] 1 NSWLR 124 (CCA); R v Lo Presti [1992] 1 VR 696 (CCA). 138. See R v MSK and MAK [2004] NSWCCA 308.

150

Uniform Evidence Law

s 28

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.27.180]

Cth Act: 28 Order of examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination Unless the court otherwise directs: (a) cross-examination of a witness is not to take place before the examination in chief of the witness; and (b) re-examination of a witness is not to take place before all other parties who wish to do so have cross-examined the witness. NSW Act: 28 Order of examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination Unless the court otherwise directs: (a) cross-examination of a witness is not to take place before the examination in chief of the witness, and (b) re-examination of a witness is not to take place before all other parties who wish to do so have cross-examined the witness. Vic Act: 28 Order of examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination Unless the court otherwise directs— (a) cross-examination of a witness is not to take place before the examination in chief of the witness; and (b) re-examination of a witness is not to take place before all other parties who wish to do so have cross-examined the witness. ACT Act: 28 Order of examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination Unless the court otherwise directs— (a) cross-examination of a witness must not take place before the examination-in-chief of the witness; and (b) re-examination of a witness must not take place before all other parties who wish to do so have cross-examined the witness. NT Act: 28 Order of examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination Unless the court otherwise directs: (a) cross-examination of a witness is not to take place before the examination in chief of the witness; and (b) re-examination of a witness is not to take place before all other parties who wish to do so have cross-examined the witness. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

151

[EA.28.30]

[EA.28.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 28

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 32, para 111(b).

[EA.28.60]

Definitions

The term “examination-in-chief” is defined in cl 2 of Pt 2 of the Dictionary: (1) A reference in this Act to examination in chief of a witness is a reference to the questioning of a witness by the party who called the witness to give evidence, not being questioning that is re-examination.

The term “cross-examination” is defined in cl 2 of Pt 2 of the Dictionary: (2) A reference in this Act to cross-examination of a witness is a reference to the questioning of a witness by a party other than the party who called the witness to give evidence.

The term “re-examination” is defined in cl 2 of Pt 2 of the Dictionary: (3) A reference in this Act to re-examination of a witness is a reference to the questioning of a witness by the party who called the witness to give evidence, being questioning (other than further examination in chief with the leave of the court) conducted after the cross-examination of the witness by another party. (4) If a party has recalled a witness who has already given evidence, a reference in this Act to re-examination of a witness does not include a reference to the questioning of the witness by that party before the witness is questioned by another party.

[EA.28.90]

“unless the court otherwise directs”

Section 192 deals generally with the giving of directions and permits the court to give a direction “on such terms as the court thinks fit”.

[EA.28.120]

Affidavits and written statements

Although it is not expressly stated, it is clear that the Act does not prevent a court from directing that evidence-in-chief is to be given by affidavit.139 However, it is not clear whether this is because Pt 2.1 does not apply to affidavit evidence at all or because Pt 2.1 permits a court to order that examination in chief may be given in the form of affidavit evidence. For discussion of this issue generally, see [EA.Ch 2.Pt 2.1.30]. Furthermore, given s 37(3), a witness may by way of affidavit swear to or affirm the truth of a previous statement exhibited to the affidavit or to the truth of a transcript of a previous interview so exhibited.140 Of course, it is equally clear that a court may refuse to receive affidavit evidence and require evidence-in-chief to be given orally.141

[EA.28.150]

Other provisions

Other legislation affects the way in which evidence is given by witnesses. For example, s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) 139. Donaghy v Wentworth Area Health Service [2003] NSWSC 533; Protective Commissioner v B (unreported, NSW SC, Hodgson J, 23 June 1997); Lindsay-Owen v Lake [2000] NSWSC 1046 at [2] per Hodgson CJ in Eq. 140. Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 833; Temple v Powell (No 1) [2007] FCA 987. 141. See, for example, Thomas v SMP (International) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 822.

152

Uniform Evidence Law

s 29

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.28.150]

permits a court to direct that a person (whether or not a party to the proceeding) give evidence by audio link or audio visual link in certain circumstances. A similar provision is found in s 42E of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic). Legislation in NSW and Victoria permits the evidence of children in certain types of proceedings to be given by way of closed-circuit television facilities or by means of any other similar technology and permits the evidence-in-chief of child witnesses to be given in criminal proceedings substantially by way of the playing of a videotape of an interview between the witness and a police officer.

Cth Act: 29 Manner and form of questioning witnesses and their responses (1) A party may question a witness in any way the party thinks fit, except as provided by this Chapter or as directed by the court. (2) A court may, on its own motion or on the application of the party that called the witness, direct that the witness give evidence wholly or partly in narrative form. [Subs (2) subst Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 10]

(3) Such a direction may include directions about the way in which evidence is to be given in that form. (4) Evidence may be given in the form of charts, summaries or other explanatory material if it appears to the court that the material would be likely to aid its comprehension of other evidence that has been given or is to be given. [S 29 am Act 135 of 2008]

NSW Act: 29 Manner and form of questioning witnesses and their responses (1) A party may question a witness in any way the party thinks fit, except as provided by this Chapter or as directed by the court. (2) A court may, on its own motion or on the application of the party that called the witness, direct that the witness give evidence wholly or partly in narrative form. [Subs (2) subst Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[9]]

(3) Such a direction may include directions about the way in which evidence is to be given in that form. (4) Evidence may be given in the form of charts, summaries or other explanatory material if it appears to the court that the material would be likely to aid its comprehension of other evidence that has been given or is to be given. [S 29 am Act 46 of 2007]

© 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

153

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 29

Vic Act: 29 Manner and form of questioning witnesses and their responses (1) A party may question a witness in any way the party thinks fit, except as provided by this Chapter or as directed by the court. (2) A court may, on its own motion or on the application of the party that called the witness, direct that the witness give evidence wholly or partly in narrative form. (3) Such a direction may include directions about the way in which evidence is to be given in that form. (4) Evidence may be given in the form of charts, summaries or other explanatory material if it appears to the court that the material would be likely to aid its comprehension of other evidence that has been given or is to be given. ACT Act: 29 Manner and form of questioning witnesses and their responses (1) A party may question a witness in any way the party thinks fit, except as provided by this chapter or as directed by the court. (2) The court may, on its own motion or on the application of the party that called the witness, direct that the witness give evidence completely or partly in narrative form. (3) The direction may include directions about the way in which evidence is to be given in that form. (4) Evidence may be given in the form of charts, summaries or other explanatory material if it appears to the court that the material would be likely to aid its comprehension of other evidence that has been given or is to be given. NT Act: 29 Manner and form of questioning witnesses and their responses (1) A party may question a witness in any way the party thinks fit, except as provided by this Chapter or as directed by the court. (2) A court may, on its own motion or on the application of the party that called the witness, direct that the witness give evidence wholly or partly in narrative form. (3) Such a direction may include directions about the way in which evidence is to be given in that form. (4) Evidence may be given in the form of charts, summaries or other explanatory material if it appears to the court that the material would be likely to aid its comprehension of other evidence that has been given or is to be given.

154

Uniform Evidence Law

s 29

[EA.29.30]

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.29.90]

ALRC references

ALRC 102, paras 5.6–5.36; ALRC 38, s 33, para 111(c); ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 281, 607–609.

[EA.29.60]

“except … as directed by the Court”

Section 192 deals generally with the giving of directions and permits the court to give a direction “on such terms as the court thinks fit”. Section 29(3) permits the court to include directions as to how in particular the evidence may be given. Whenever a court is considering giving leave, permission or a direction under the Act, “in all cases the court must take into account the matters prescribed by s 192(2)”, as well as “matters which may be relevant in a particular case”.142

[EA.29.90]

“narrative form” (s 29(2))

It has been observed that: “narrative form” is used in contradistinction to the familiar process by which a witness giving oral evidence is asked questions and the witness’s evidence takes the form of the answers given to those questions. “Narrative form” refers to the situation where a witness stands in the witness box and speaks without being questioned.143

The ALRC explained the philosophy behind this provision as it was originally drafted, prior to amendment following on ALRC 102 (ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 607–609): Psychological research lends support to the claim advanced at times by witnesses that being tied to answering designated questions tends to result in the distortion of their testimony. Similarly, the claim that a free report would give a more accurate version of the events in dispute is supported. On the other hand, psychological research also confirms the experience of many legal practitioners: a free report by a witness is usually found to be sketchy or incomplete. .... Obviously, both these techniques have positive and negative attributes and there would be considerable merit in the courts generally adopting a procedure which incorporated the use of each method to its greatest advantage. A free report by the witness would need to be followed by direct examination and cross-examination if the evidence was to be complete. ... It is possible for the parties to present evidence in narrative form and for the judge to suggest it under existing law. What is proposed is the drafting of a proposal which will enable the court to encourage this practice in appropriate cases.

However, the ultimate formulation of s 29(2) prior to amendment did not reflect the intentions of the ALRC since evidence could only be given in narrative form if “the party that called the witness has applied to the court for a direction” permitting it. In ALRC 102, it was concluded that the provision should be amended to permit a court, on its own motion, to direct that a witness give evidence wholly or partly in narrative form (paras 5.32–5.34): Despite concerns from some advocates, the Commissions remain of the view that narrative evidence is an important tool in ensuring that the best evidence is before the court. This has been the view of a number of inquiries, and is supported by a number of submissions received. It is unlikely that such a provision will be used often. It may be 142. Stanoevski v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115; [2001] HCA 4 at [41] per Gaudron, Kirby and Callinan JJ. 143. LMI A/asia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 31; [2001] NSWSC 688 at [7] per Barrett J. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

155

[EA.29.90]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 29

used where, for example, a witness is lapsing into narrative evidence and the judge believes this is appropriate, where the court anticipates that a witness will best be able to give evidence in this form, or where a party makes an application that the witness be allowed to give evidence in this way. Relevant considerations include a witness’ age, cultural background and ability to observe warnings about what evidence is admissible. While such a change may not impact on the practice of advocates, it signals a clear legislative intention that the section should be used where it will lead to the best outcome for the court in receiving the witness’ evidence. Should the process of giving evidence in narrative form result in undue delay or inadmissible evidence being given, a judge has sufficient powers under ss 135 and 136 to control the proceedings. The uniform Evidence Acts should therefore provide that the evidence may be given in narrative form, without the need for an application from a party. The court should be able to give a general direction about which evidence is to be given in narrative form and the way in which that evidence may be given.

Reference may be made to particular categories of witness for which this provision may have particular application: (a) Experts. In ALRC 102, it was noted (para 5.11) that such witnesses tend to be familiar with the rules of evidence and can observe warnings regarding what evidence is or is not admissible. In ALRC 26 it was considered that the court, in deciding whether to direct that evidence be given in narrative form, “would need to consider, amongst other things, whether the witness will be able to observe warnings about what evidence is [and is not] admissible”.144 (b) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In ALRC 102, it was stated at para 5.14: The question and answer method for eliciting evidence may be particularly inappropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) witnesses who are not accustomed to this method of communication or to approaching a story in a direct way in response to specific questions. It has been argued that a question and answer method of eliciting information can be socially distressing for ATSI witnesses, because it is antithetical to their culture and style of communication, which emphasises narrative and indirect means of eliciting information. Studies have shown that indirectness is a definitive characteristic of ATSI communicative styles. [footnotes deleted]

(c) Children. In ALRC 102, it was stated at para 5.18 that the “question and answer method of giving evidence may be particularly difficult for witnesses who are children, due to such factors as the formality of the court, legal language and procedures, and the limitations of children’s understanding, experience and language”. (d) Persons with an intellectual disability. In ALRC 102, it was stated at para 5.22: The question and answer method of giving evidence may also be unsuitable for witnesses with an intellectual disability. For example, a person with an intellectual disability may use simple language and non-verbal communication methods. In its submission to the Inquiry, the Intellectual Disability Rights Service notes that difficulties in using numbers or other quantitative means of describing events may be part of a person’s intellectual disability. Therefore 144. ALRC 26, vol 1, para 609, n 28.

156

Uniform Evidence Law

s 29

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.29.120]

if a witness with such a disability is asked questions like “how” or “when”, they might be seen as vague or evasive.

(e) Unrepresented litigants. In Isherwood v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 11 the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal noted at [78] that this provision “was not inserted with unrepresented litigants’ evidence in mind” and then concluded: “The direction will be required in every case of an unrepresented litigant giving evidence, otherwise he or she will be unable to give it”. In Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 6) [2014] FCA 804, Collier J granted leave to two unrepresented parties “to give oral evidence in narrative form to complement any written statements they have prepared and which may be eventually accepted into evidence”, subject to certain conditions.145 Where the application is made, the ALRC considered that the court, in deciding whether to direct that evidence be given in narrative form, “would need to consider, amongst other things, whether the witness will be able to observe warnings about what evidence is [and is not] admissible”.146 This is more likely to be the case in respect of witnesses who are familiar with the general rules of evidence (for example, expert witnesses). A concern to avoid inadmissible evidence may discourage courts, particularly in criminal proceedings, from directing that a witness give evidence wholly or partly in narrative form. A more suitable option might be to utilise the powers conferred under ss 26 and 42. Where the court has not made a direction under s 29(2)(b) the witness must give evidence according to the conventional model of answers to questions. If an answer given is not responsive to the question asked it may be “struck out”.147

[EA.29.120]

Conversations reported in indirect speech

Given the view that “narrative form” refers to the situation where a witness stands in the witness box and speaks without being questioned, it has been held that this provision does not apply to evidence from a witness reporting a conversation in indirect speech.148 Barrett J concluded that there is no rule of law, whether under the Evidence Act or otherwise, which makes inadmissible evidence of a conversation given in indirect speech, although discretionary exclusion is possible.149 145. The two unrepresented parties were required to give notice to the other parties of any additional evidence the parties proposed to give by filing an outline of that additional evidence (at [25]), directed that such additional evidence “must be relevant, not hearsay, and not opinion evidence” (at [25]) and directed how evidence that “would usually be given by them under re-examination by their own counsel” might be given (at [27]). 146. ALRC 26, vol 1, para 609, n 28. 147. Compare R v Parkes [2003] NSWCCA 12 at [13]–[26]. 148. LMI A/asia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 31; [2001] NSWSC 688 at [7] per Barrett J. 149. LMI A/asia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 31; [2001] NSWSC 688. Barrett J observed (at [8]–[9]): “There are obviously very good reasons why courts have, over the years, been astute to regard the direct speech form as the best form … The possibility that s 135 may be invoked where evidence of a conversation is given in indirect speech is, of course, real. However, the question under that section will not merely be whether there is prejudice, but whether that prejudice is unfair prejudice operating against the opposing party because of a curtailment of the ability to cross-examine. I accept that not all the © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

157

[EA.29.150]

[EA.29.150]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 29

Affidavits and written statements

It has been held that this provision has no application to affidavit evidence, on the basis that virtually all the provisions of Div 3 are concerned with oral evidence and the psychological considerations which support the giving of narrative oral evidence have “no part to play when affidavit evidence is presented because the witness has the assistance of professional advice in preparing the document”.150 The same view has been taken where the evidence is to be given by statement, which the witness affirms in a compendious way at the start of his or her testimony.151 Further, in Clark v The Queen (2008) 185 A Crim R 1; [2008] NSWCCA 122, it appears to have been accepted at [116]–[121] that, “ordinarily”, in criminal trials, evidence should not be elicited in this way (unless the defendant consents to this procedure pursuant to s 190).

[EA.29.180]

“charts, summaries or other explanatory material” (s 29(4))

This provision (read in conjunction with s 135) substantially accords with the common law position as articulated by the High Court in Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 164 CLR 180; 30 A Crim R 417. The majority of the court, Mason CJ, Brennan and Deane JJ, stated (at 189–190): The adducing of oral evidence from witnesses in criminal trials underlies the rules of procedure which the law ordains for their conduct. A witness who gives evidence orally demonstrates, for good or ill, more about his or her credibility than a witness whose evidence is given in documentary form. Oral evidence is public; written evidence may not be. Oral evidence gives to the trial the atmosphere which, though intangible, is often critical to the jury’s estimate of the witnesses. By generally restricting the jury to consideration of testimonial evidence in its oral form, it is thought that the jury’s discussion of the case in the jury room will be more open, the exchange of views among jurors will be easier, and the legitimate merging of opinions will more easily occur than if the evidence were given in writing or the jurors were each armed with a written transcript of the evidence … The general rule that witnesses must give their evidence orally is not without exception. In Smith v The Queen (1970) 121 CLR 572, a chart had been prepared by a witness to explain complicated business transactions. The chart was admitted in evidence, though what it showed could have been described – albeit laboriously – in oral evidence. This Court agreed with the view expressed by the Court of Criminal Appeal … that the chart was rightly admitted: The chart was nothing but a convenient record of a series of highly complicated cheque transactions which had been proved by other evidence, and was likely to be of considerable assistance to the jury. Had they all been accountants, doubtless after considerable time they could have prepared such a chart for themselves. The use of such charts and other time-saving devices in complicated trials of this kind is a usual and desirable procedure and is encouraged by the courts. cross-examination opportunities available in a case of direct speech report will arise in case of an indirect speech report, but the ability to engage in meaningful cross-examination will exist nevertheless. There is also the point that the probative value of the evidence may be diminished by its form.” 150. Ramirez v The Trustee of the Property of Zoltan Sandor, A Bankrupt (unreported, NSW SC, Young J, 22 April 1997). Reliance may be placed on s 11, 26, 29 or 37(3). 151. LMI A/asia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 31; [2001] NSWSC 688 at [6] per Barrett J.

158

Uniform Evidence Law

s 30

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.29.180]

The practice of requiring witnesses to give their evidence orally should not be waived lightly, especially if there is a risk that writing will give undue weight to that evidence to the disadvantage of an accused person. While s 29(4) refers only to the likelihood that material will aid the court’s comprehension of other evidence, the general discretion in s 135 (and s 137 relating to prosecution evidence in criminal trials) allows the court to take into account the considerations referred to above in respect of jury trials.152 For a discussion of the position in relation to written transcripts of tape-recorded conversations, see [EA.48.180].

Cth Act: 30

Interpreters A witness may give evidence about a fact through an interpreter unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make an adequate reply to, questions that may be put about the fact. NSW Act: 30

Interpreters A witness may give evidence about a fact through an interpreter unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make an adequate reply to, questions that may be put about the fact. Vic Act: 30

Interpreters A witness may give evidence about a fact through an interpreter unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make an adequate reply to, questions that may be put about the fact. ACT Act: 30

Interpreters A witness may give evidence about a fact through an interpreter unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make an adequate reply to, questions that may be put about the fact.

152. R v Pirrottina (unreported, NSW SC, 20 March 1997). In this case, it was held to be inappropriate to allow a chart prepared by the prosecution, where the events sought to be summarised were not matters likely to tax the comprehension of an ordinary juror and where the chart was entirely concerned with the prosecution’s version of events. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

159

[EA.30.30]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 30

NT Act: 30

Interpreter A witness may give evidence about a fact through an interpreter unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make an adequate reply to, questions that may be put about the fact.

[EA.30.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 34, paras 111(d), 112(a); ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 282–285, 610–611.

[EA.30.60]

General comments

This provision deals with a witness giving evidence through an interpreter. It does not deal with other situations in which an interpreter may be required in order to ensure a fair trial (for example, so an unrepresented defendant in criminal proceedings is able to understand the prosecution evidence). Such situations are matters for the common law.153 The ALRC commented on the philosophy behind the proposal on which this provision is based (ALRC 26, vol 1, para 611): There is evidence that, under existing law where a witness must seek the permission of the court to be allowed an interpreter, there is a reluctance to allow interpreters and that this adversely affects the fact-finding process and is unfair to the parties and witnesses. The proposal changes the onus – a person is entitled to an interpreter unless the court orders otherwise. At present, it is assumed a person either knows English or does not, so that a witness is not allowed an interpreter’s occasional assistance. The proposal will allow the use of interpreters for part of the evidence of the witness... . The possibility of abuse exists whatever approach is taken. The proposal gives the trial judge control over the situation and he can intervene at any time to stop the use of an interpreter.

It should be noted that the ALRC proposal included the word “fully” after the words “to enable the witness to understand”. However, the provision as it stands appears to reflect the intentions of the ALRC. It may be that a witness who has English as a second language could never be in a position to understand “fully” a question, so that the use of an interpreter would be required. Deletion of the word ensures that the court is in a position, as the ALRC intended, to control the use of interpreters.

[EA.30.90]

“evidence about a fact”

The use of this terminology permits a court to allow a witness the assistance of interpreter for part only of his or her testimony. It should not be interpreted to prevent evidence through an interpreter which is in the form of an opinion.

153. See, for example, Ebatarinja v Deland (1998) 194 CLR 444; R v Rostom [2007] SASC 210.

160

Uniform Evidence Law

s 31

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.30.120]

[EA.30.120]

Relevance to the credibility of the witness

A ruling pursuant to this provision that a witness may give evidence through an interpreter does not preclude the use (and possible abuse) of an interpreter being taken into account when assessing the credibility of the evidence given by the witness.154

Cth Act: 31

Witnesses who cannot hear adequately or speak adequately

(1) A witness who cannot hear adequately may be questioned in any appropriate way. (2) A witness who cannot speak adequately may give evidence by any appropriate means. (3) The court may give directions concerning either or both of the following: (a) the way in which a witness may be questioned under subsection (1); (b) the means by which a witness may give evidence under subsection (2). (4) This section does not affect the right of a witness to whom this section applies to give evidence about a fact through an interpreter under section 30. [S 31 am Act 113 of 2015, s 3 and Sch 5 item 60]

NSW Act: 31

Deaf and mute witnesses

(1) A witness who cannot hear adequately may be questioned in any appropriate way. (2) A witness who cannot speak adequately may give evidence by any appropriate means. (3) The court may give directions concerning either or both of the following: (a) the way in which a witness may be questioned under subsection (1), (b) the means by which a witness may give evidence under subsection (2). (4) This section does not affect the right of a witness to whom this section applies to give evidence about a fact through an interpreter under section 30.

154. See Tsang v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2011) 219 A Crim R 304; [2011] VSCA 336 at [102]–[112] (special leave to appeal refused by the High Court: Tsang v The Queen [2012] HCATrans 198). © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

161

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 31

Vic Act: 31

Deaf and mute witnesses

(1) A witness who cannot hear adequately may be questioned in any appropriate way. (2) A witness who cannot speak adequately may give evidence by any appropriate means. (3) The court may give directions concerning either or both of the following— (a) the way in which a witness may be questioned under subsection (1); (b) the means by which a witness may give evidence under subsection (2). (4) This section does not affect the right of a witness to whom this section applies to give evidence about a fact through an interpreter under section 30. ACT Act: 31

Deaf and mute witnesses

(1) A witness who cannot hear adequately may be questioned in any appropriate way. (2) A witness who cannot speak adequately may give evidence by any appropriate means. (3) The court may give directions about either or both of the following: (a) the way in which a witness may be questioned under subsection (1); (b) the means by which a witness may give evidence under subsection (2). (4) This section does not affect the right of a witness to whom this section applies to give evidence about a fact through an interpreter under section 30. NT Act: 31

Deaf and mute witnesses

(1) A witness who cannot hear adequately may be questioned in any appropriate way. (2) A witness who cannot speak adequately may give evidence by any appropriate means. (3) The court may give directions concerning either or both of the following: (a) the way in which a witness may be questioned under subsection (1); (b) the means by which a witness may give evidence under subsection (2). (4) This section does not affect the right of a witness to whom this section applies to give evidence about a fact through an interpreter under section 30.

162

Uniform Evidence Law

s 32

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.31.30]

[EA.31.60]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 35; ALRC 26, vol 1, para 612.

[EA.31.60]

General comments

The ALRC explained that this provision was included to “make it clear that the physical disabilities of a witness give rise only to practical problems of presentation and not to competence”.155 However, in extreme cases, the witness may be incompetent to testify: see s 13. This provision does not affect the general desirability that, so far as possible, a witness’s evidence be given orally.156

Cth Act: 32

Attempts to revive memory in court

(1) A witness must not, in the course of giving evidence, use a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion unless the court gives leave. (2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether to give leave, it is to take into account: (a) whether the witness will be able to recall the fact or opinion adequately without using the document; and (b) whether so much of the document as the witness proposes to use is, or is a copy of, a document that: (i) was written or made by the witness when the events recorded in it were fresh in his or her memory; or (ii) was, at such a time, found by the witness to be accurate. (3) If a witness has, while giving evidence, used a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion, the witness may, with the leave of the court, read aloud, as part of his or her evidence, so much of the document as relates to that fact or opinion. (4) The court is, on the request of a party, to give such directions as the court thinks fit to ensure that so much of the document as relates to the proceeding is produced to that party. NSW Act: 32

Attempts to revive memory in court

(1) A witness must not, in the course of giving evidence, use a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion unless the court gives leave. (2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether to give leave, it is to take into account:

155. See ALRC 26, vol 1, para 612. 156. Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 164 CLR 180; 30 A Crim R 417 at 189–190 (CLR); R v Hutton (1932) 32 SR (NSW) 282 at 287. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

163

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

(a) (b)

s 32

whether the witness will be able to recall the fact or opinion adequately without using the document, and whether so much of the document as the witness proposes to use is, or is a copy of, a document that: (i) was written or made by the witness when the events recorded in it were fresh in his or her memory, or (ii) was, at such a time, found by the witness to be accurate.

(3) If a witness has, while giving evidence, used a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion, the witness may, with the leave of the court, read aloud, as part of his or her evidence, so much of the document as relates to that fact or opinion. (4) The court is, on the request of a party, to give such directions as the court thinks fit to ensure that so much of the document as relates to the proceeding is produced to that party. Vic Act: 32

Attempts to revive memory in court

(1) A witness must not, in the course of giving evidence, use a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion unless the court gives leave. (2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether to give leave, it is to take into account— (a) whether the witness will be able to recall the fact or opinion adequately without using the document; and (b) whether so much of the document as the witness proposes to use is, or is a copy of, a document that— (i) was written or made by the witness when the events recorded in it were fresh in his or her memory; or (ii) was, at such a time, found by the witness to be accurate. (3) If a witness has, while giving evidence, used a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion, the witness may, with the leave of the court, read aloud, as part of his or her evidence, so much of the document as relates to that fact or opinion. (4) The court is, on the request of a party, to give such directions as the court thinks fit to ensure that so much of the document as relates to the proceeding is produced to that party. ACT Act: 32

Attempts to revive memory in court

(1) A witness must not, in the course of giving evidence, use a document to try to revive the witness’s memory about a fact or opinion unless the court gives leave. (2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether to give leave, it must take into account— 164

Uniform Evidence Law

s 32

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

(a) (b)

[EA.32.60]

whether the witness will be able to recall the fact or opinion adequately without using the document; and whether the part of the document that the witness proposes to use is, or is a copy of, a document that— (i) was written or made by the witness when the events recorded in it were fresh in the witness’s memory; or (ii) was, at that time, found by the witness to be accurate.

(3) If a witness has, while giving evidence, used a document to try to revive the witness’s memory about a fact or opinion, the witness may, with the leave of the court, read aloud, as part of the witness’s evidence, the part of the document that relates to the fact or opinion. (4) The court must, on the request of a party, give the directions the court thinks fit to ensure that the part of the document that relates to the proceeding is produced to the party. NT Act: 32

Attempts to revive memory in court

(1) A witness must not, in the course of giving evidence, use a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion unless the court gives leave. (2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether to give leave, it is to take into account: (a) whether the witness will be able to recall the fact or opinion adequately without using the document; and (b) whether so much of the document as the witness proposes to use is, or is a copy of, a document that: (i) was written or made by the witness when the events recorded in it were fresh in his or her memory; or (ii) was, at such a time, found by the witness to be accurate. (3) If a witness has, while giving evidence, used a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion, the witness may, with the leave of the court, read aloud, as part of his or her evidence, so much of the document as relates to that fact or opinion. (4) The court is, on the request of a party, to give such directions as the court thinks fit to ensure that so much of the document as relates to the proceeding is produced to that party.

[EA.32.30]

ALRC references

ALRC 38, s 36, paras 111(e), 112(b); ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 286–289, 614–615.

[EA.32.60]

General comments

The ALRC explained the proposals on which this provision is based (see ALRC 26, vol 1, para 615): These proposals are developed from existing law but introduce a greater degree of flexibility. The proposals choose between the differences in the law and address the © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

165

[EA.32.90]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 32

criticisms made of the law. Leave of the court is required. The specific matters to be considered by the court include whether the document was made or written or verified by the witness as accurate at a time when the facts were fresh in his memory. The concept “fresh in the memory” is used rather than “contemporaneous”. Both have been used by the courts. The former, however, more accurately states the intention of the rule. Also “contemporaneous” literally means occurring at the same time as the other event and would, therefore, if applied strictly prevent the use of material that should be used.

It has been observed that this provision is designed: to facilitate giving of evidence by a witness who, without access to contemporaneous notes of the kind referred to in the section, would be unable to give a full and accurate account of what had occurred from his or her unaided memory. The occasion for the operation of the section commonly arises when a witness’s evidence is being led in chief.157

Chapter 2 of the Act is not a code and it may be that a witness may be permitted to look at a document while giving evidence in chief pursuant to a common law procedure (see [EA.Intro.120] and [EA.32.360]). Furthermore, other provisions in Chapter 2 may result in a witness having their memory “refreshed” (for example, by leading questions pursuant to s 37 or s 38). This provision only deals with the use of a “document” to try to revive memory (as distinct from a “thing”). It follows that the use of a “thing” is left to the court’s general power under s 26. The term “document” is defined in the Dictionary: “document” means any record of information, and includes: (a) anything on which there is writing; or (b) anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols; or (c) perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; or (d) anything from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or (e) a map, plan, drawing or photograph.

In addition, clause 8 of Part 2 of the Dictionary provides: 8. A reference in this Act to a document includes a reference to: (a) any part of the document; or (b) any copy, reproduction or duplicate of the document or of any part of the document; or (c) any part of such a copy, reproduction or duplicate.

[EA.32.90]

“leave of the court”

The question of leave arises in two situations. The first is where an application is made while a witness is giving evidence to permit the witness to use a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion: s 32(1). While s 32(2) requires the court to take into account a number of matters in deciding whether to give leave to a witness to use a document to try to revive his or her memory, s 192 deals with the grant of leave generally and permits the court to give leave “on such terms as the court thinks fit”. Whenever a court is considering giving 157. Hadid v Australis Media Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 5 November 1996).

166

Uniform Evidence Law

s 32

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.32.90]

leave, permission or a direction under the Act, “in all cases the court must take into account the matters prescribed by s 192(2)”, as well as “matters which may be relevant in a particular case”.158 It has been suggested by Sperling J in the NSW Supreme Court that it would not be appropriate to grant leave where the document is not one that falls within the terms of s 32(2)(b).159 On the other hand, in another case the same judge permitted a police officer giving evidence of the contents of a motel registration form to refresh his memory from a “running sheet” prepared by another police officer even though s 32(2)(b) was not satisfied.160 He stated: On consideration, I think it would be wrong to hold, as a universal rule, that there is no scope for the operation of s 32 without answering to the considerations mentioned in para (b) of s 32(2).

Evidence was given from the police officer who prepared the running sheet that he incorporated into it information as to the contents of the registration form provided to him by the police officer seeking to refresh his memory. Sperling J explained why leave should be given: [T]he document – purportedly and according to the evidence – recorded what [the police officer] had seen when he inspected the registration form. The kind of information recorded in the document was also important. Relevantly, the only material content was a date, a name and the registration number of a motor vehicle. That is not the kind of information likely to be inaccurately transcribed or corrupted in transmission from one police officer to another in the course of a criminal investigation. Evidence given by [the police officer], using the document, was likely to be reliable.

It has been held that it would not normally be appropriate to grant leave during cross-examination of a witness where the cross-examiner has asked the witness not to refer to the document, unless considerations of fairness require the witness to have access to it.161 As regards the situation of an unrepresented litigant, the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal stated in Isherwood v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 11 at [81]: The principal object of s 32 is the giving of leave to a witness to refresh memory from notes made when the events recorded were fresh in the witness’s memory, but that is not its only object and its provisions are sufficiently broad to apply to the situation that arose in this case. Almost invariably, unrepresented litigants are at a disadvantage when giving evidence because they do not have counsel to lead the evidence from them by appropriately worded questions. The risk of an unrepresented litigant forgetting to give evidence of a material fact will be a real one in many cases if he or she does not have recourse to notes. While a trial judge will have an understandable concern to ensure that a witness does not simply read his or her evidence from a prepared document, care should be taken before refusing an unrepresented litigant leave to refer to any notes at all when giving evidence. There could hardly be harm to the interests of justice if the

158. Stanoevski v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115; [2001] HCA 4 at [41] per Gaudron, Kirby and Callinan JJ. 159. Hadid v Australis Media Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 5 November 1996). 160. R v Cassar (Judgment No 28) [1999] NSWSC 651. Sperling J noted that evidence was given from another police officer that he incorporated into the running sheet information provided to him by the first police officer. 161. Hadid v Australis Media Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 5 November 1996). © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

167

[EA.32.120]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 32

notes contain only subject headings or questions that are not in a leading form, the purpose of which is to refresh the mind of the witness of the matters about which he or she should give evidence.

The second situation where the question of leave arises is where a witness, while giving evidence, has used a document to try to revive his or her memory about a fact or opinion and an application is made to permit the witness to read aloud, as part of his or her evidence, so much of the document as relates to that fact or opinion: s 32(3). Section 192 deals with the grant of leave generally and permits the court to give leave “on such terms as the court thinks fit”. Section 32 does require the court to take into account particular matters in deciding whether to give leave. However, whenever a court is considering giving leave, permission or a direction under the Act, “in all cases the court must take into account the matters prescribed by s 192(2)”, as well as “matters which may be relevant in a particular case”. One relevant matter would be whether the opposing party would be limited in the ability to effectively test or challenge the evidence by cross-examination if, in fact, the witness has testified that his or her memory has not been revived.162

[EA.32.120]

“copy”

This will have to be established by evidence.

[EA.32.150]

“when the events recorded in it were fresh in his or her memory”

This test is also adopted under the common law163 and there are common law authorities which have suggested that an event may be “fresh” in the memory days, and possibly even weeks, afterwards.164 However, there are contrary authorities (which have emphasised “contemporaneity”) and an argument can be advanced that an event cannot be “fresh” in the memory more than 24 hours after it occurs.165 ALRC 102 investigated recent research on memory for the purposes of the identical test in the hearsay rule exception in s 66 and concluded that a much more flexible approach is required, taking into account a range of factors (see [EA.66.180]). The Victorian Court of Appeal has doubted whether the term “fresh in the memory” in this provision should be read in the same manner as it has been interpreted for the purposes of s 66, but held that it was open to a judge to grant leave under this provision in respect of a document made 5 years after 162. See Director Public Prosecutions v Curran (No 2) [2011] VSC 280. 163. R v Singh (1977) 15 SASR 591 at 593 per Sangster J. In R v Van Beelen (1972) 6 SASR 534 at 537, Sangster J stated that: “[T]he real test is freshness of memory as a question of fact and not the relationship in time, except that shortness of time makes it easier to accept the witness’s assertion that the facts were fresh and length of time more difficult – and a great length of time would undoubtedly lead any court to reject the evidence claiming that the events were fresh in the memory of the witness at the time of making of the memorandum”. 164. R v Singh (1977) 15 SASR 591; R v Van Beelen (1972) 6 SASR 534. 165. The ALRC investigated the nature of memory: ALRC 26, vol 1, paras 421, 665–668. It found that memory tends to diminish rapidly at first (and then more slowly) – within hours of an event there is likely to be a substantial loss of memory. In addition, post-event information is likely to quickly contaminate (change) the memory of the event, altering it and filling in gaps arising from the rapid process of “forgetting”. However, for more recent discussion in relation to memory, see [EA.66.180].

168

Uniform Evidence Law

s 32

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.32.270]

166

the relevant events. Of course, under s 32(2), whether or not the events were “fresh in the memory” or not is only a factor which the court “is to take into account”.

[EA.32.180]

Reading the document aloud (s 32(3))

Before leave may be granted to read the document aloud, there must be evidence before the court that the witness has used the document in an attempt to revive his or her memory.167 It may not be appropriate to give leave if the document is in objectionable form.168 Section 192 deals with the grant of leave generally and permits the court to give leave “on such terms as the court thinks fit”.169 Whenever a court is considering giving leave, permission or a direction under the Act, “in all cases the court must take into account the matters prescribed by s 192(2)”, as well as “matters which may be relevant in a particular case”.170 If the document is read out, the evidence is to be treated as testimony by the person reading it, rather than as hearsay evidence (that is, it is treated as in-court evidence rather than “evidence of a previous representation” for the purposes of s 59).171

[EA.32.210]

Consequences of use of document

Under s 122(6) client legal privilege is lost in respect “of a document that a witness has used to try to revive the witness’s memory about a fact or opinion or has used as mentioned in section 32”.

[EA.32.240]

Hearsay

This provision does not create a hearsay exception analogous to the common law “past recollection recorded”. However, evidence of a previous representation in a document used to try to revive memory may fall within exceptions to the hearsay rule in ss 64(3) and 66(2).

[EA.32.270]

Consequences of requesting production of document (s 32(4))

Under s 35(1), a party is not required to tender a document only because the party called for the document to be produced to the party or because the party inspected it when it was so produced. Equally, under s 35(2), the party who produced the document is not entitled to tender it on the basis that it has been produced to, or inspected by, another party. 166. Roth (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 242 at [40]. 167. Hinton by his Tutor Leslie Melba Hinton v Valiotis (unreported, NSW SC, Sperling J, 7 March 1997). 168. R v Dean (No 2) (unreported, NSW SC, Dunford J, 12 March 1997). 169. For examples of the application of s 192 in this context see R v Kaukura (unreported, NSW SC, Badgery-Parker J, 13 August 1997) and Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd [2015] VSC 582 at [182]–[183]. 170. Stanoevski v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115; [2001] HCA 4 at [41] per Gaudron, Kirby and Callinan JJ. 171. See Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd [2015] VSC 582 at [177]–[178]. © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

169

[EA.32.300]

[EA.32.300]

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 32

Directions to produce (s 32(4))

It is not clear what is to happen where a party fails to comply with a direction to produce a document. If the direction is made before the witness uses the document in an attempt to revive memory, unreasonable failure to comply would mean that leave would not be given. However, if the request for a direction is made in cross-examination and there is then an unreasonable failure to comply, there is no provision comparable to s 34(2). Presumably the contempt power may be used and strong comment can be made. As a last resort, the trial might have to be aborted.

[EA.32.330]

Affidavits

Clearly this provision does not attempt to regulate attempts to refresh memory out of court (see s 34). It has been held that this provision does not prevent preparation of an affidavit by reference to other documents: Section 32 does not preclude preparation being made for the giving of oral evidence by way of a witness being referred, during that preparation, to all relevant contemporary documents, not limited to the documents made by the witness. I would understand it to be the normal practice for affidavits and witness statements to be prepared in a process in which the witness is referred to and prompted by all available documents. I do not understand there to be any rule of law or professional ethics to the contrary.172

[EA.32.360]

Alternative common law procedure

This provision deals with “attempts to revive memory in court”, where a witness is “in the course of giving evidence”. However, the English Court of Appeal in R v Da Silva [1990] 1 All ER 29 approved an alternative procedure whereby a court may, after a witness has commenced giving evidence, permit the witness an opportunity to attempt to refresh his or her memory from a previous statement before continuing to testify without the benefit of the statement: In our judgment, therefore, it should be open to the judge, in the exercise of his discretion and in the interests of justice, to permit a witness who has begun to give evidence to refresh his memory from a statement made near to the time of events in question, even though it does not come within the definition of contemporaneous, provided he is satisfied (1) that the witness indicates that he cannot now recall the details of events because of the lapse of time since they took place, (2) that he made a statement much nearer the time of the events and that the contents of the statement represented his recollection at the time he made it, (3) that he had not read the statement before coming into the witness box and (4) that he wished to have an opportunity to read the statement before he continued to give evidence.173

The requirements of s 32 (requiring consideration as to whether the statement when the events recorded in it were fresh in the witness’s memory) would not apply under this procedure. The proceedings could be adjourned to permit the witness an opportunity to read the statement. Alternatively, the witness might be permitted to read the statement while sitting in the witness box. However, the witness would not be permitted to refer to the statement while testifying. It should also be noted that the procedural safeguards regarding production established in s 34 would apply to use of such a statement in an attempt to revive memory. 172. Lindsay-Owen v Lake [2000] NSWSC 1046 at [3] per Hodgson CJ in Eq. 173. [1990] 1 All ER 29 at 33c.

170

Uniform Evidence Law

s 33

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.32.360]

Cth Act: 33

Evidence given by police officers

(1) Despite section 32, in any criminal proceeding, a police officer may give evidence in chief for the prosecution by reading or being led through a written statement previously made by the police officer. (2) Evidence may not be so given unless: (a) the statement was made by the police officer at the time of or soon after the occurrence of the events to which it refers; and (b) the police officer signed the statement when it was made; and (c) a copy of the statement had been given to the person charged or to his or her Australian legal practitioner or legal counsel a reasonable time before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution. [Subs (2) am Act 135 of 2008, s 3 and Sch 1 item 11]

(3) A reference in this section to a police officer includes a reference to a person who, at the time the statement concerned was made, was a police officer. [S 33 am Act 135 of 2008]

NSW Act: 33

Evidence given by police officers

(1) Despite section 32, in any criminal proceeding, a police officer may give evidence in chief for the prosecution by reading or being led through a written statement previously made by the police officer. (2) Evidence may not be so given unless: (a) the statement was made by the police officer at the time of or soon after the occurrence of the events to which it refers, and (b) the police officer signed the statement when it was made, and (c) a copy of the statement had been given to the person charged or to his or her Australian legal practitioner or legal counsel a reasonable time before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution. [Subs (2) am Act 46 of 2007, s 3 and Sch 1[10]]

(3) A reference in this section to a police officer includes a reference to a person who, at the time the statement concerned was made, was a police officer. [S 33 am Act 46 of 2007]

Vic Act: 33

Evidence given by police officers

(1) Despite section 32, in any criminal proceeding, a police officer may give evidence in chief for the prosecution by reading or being led through a written statement previously made by the police officer. (2) Evidence may not be so given unless— (a) the statement was made by the police officer at the time of or soon after the occurrence of the events to which it refers; and © 2016 THOMSON REUTERS

171

Chapter 2 - Adducing Evidence

s 33

(b) the police officer signed the statement when it was made; and (c) a copy of the statement had been given to the person charged or to the person’s Australian legal practitioner a reasonable time before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution. Note: Paragraph (c) differs from the Commonwealth Act and New South Wales Act. [Subs (2) am Act 17 of 2014, s 160 and Sch 2 item 39.1]

(3) A reference in this section to a police officer includes a reference to a person who, at the time the statement concerned was made, was a police officer. [S 33 am Act 17 of 2014]

ACT Act: 33

Evidence given by police officers

(1) Despite section 32, in a criminal proceeding, a police officer may give evidence-in-chief for the prosecution by reading or being led through a written statement previously made by the police officer. (2) Evidence may not be given in that way unless— (a) the statement was made by the police officer at the time of or soon after the events mentioned in the statement happened; and (b) the police officer signed the statement when it was made; and (c) a copy of the statement had been given to the person charged or to the person’s Australian legal practitioner or legal counsel a reasonable time before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution. (3) A reference in this section to a police officer includes a reference to a person who was a police officer at the time the statement was made. NT Act: 33

Evidence given by police officers

(1) Despite section 32, in any criminal proceeding, a police officer may give evidence in chief for the prosecution by reading or being led through a written statement previously made by the police officer. (2) Evidence may not be so given unless: (a) the statement was made by the police officer at the time of or soon after the occurrence of the events to which it refers; and (b) the police officer signed the statement when it was made; and (c) a copy of the statement had been given to the person charged or to the person’s Australian legal practitioner or legal counsel a reasonable time before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution. (3) A reference in this section to a police officer includes a reference to a person who, at the time the statement concerned was made, was a police officer.

172

Uniform Evidence Law

s 33

[EA.33.30]

Part 2.1 - Witnesses

[EA.33.30]

General comments

Section 33 was not proposed by the ALRC. It is based upon the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 418. That provision, in almost identical language, was interpreted in Orchard v Spooner (1992) 28 NSWLR 114. It was held (at 119 per Newman J) that: [T]he subsection itself is expressed in plain words having ... a temporal connotation rather than a qualitative one. It is a question of fact for the court hearing a matter to determine whether a witness’ statement falls within the indefinite time restraints referred to in the subsection. In considering the matter, considerations such as convenience and practicality should not, in my view, play any part in determining whether or not a witness’ statement complies with the section. ... [A] concept of immediacy must be utilised in construing the subsection. While, as I have said, ultimately it is a question of fact for the tribunal to determine, it seems to me that the subsection contemplates days rather than weeks as being a permissible time which is allowed to elapse in order to allow a statement to be read in accordance with the section.

Care will be required in determining what “events” are being referred to in the statement for the purposes of applying the test of contemporaneity.174 If that test is satisfied, the provision does not require police witnesses to assert that they have exhausted their memory or that they need to refer to their notes in order to revive their memory. If the requirements of s 33(2) are satisfied, s 33(1) provides that the police officer “may give evidence in chief for the prosecution by reading or being led through [the] written statement”. This confers a discretion on the court to determine whether the witness should be permitted to read out the statement or be “led through it” (that is, answering questions with the assistance of the statement).175 Where the police officer will be speaking of matters which concerned that officer directly as a victim, the latter course may be more appropriate.176 This provision only applies in a “criminal proceeding”. That term is defined in the Dictionary. A “police officer” may give “examination-in-chief” for the prosecution by reading or being led through a written statement previously made by the police officer. In the Dictionary, “police officer” is defined in slightly different ways in the Commonwealth and NSW/Victorian Acts. However, in substance it means a member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the police force of a State or Territory. Section 33(3) extends the term to include a person who was a polic