laws399 evidence law notes | table of contents
TRANSCRIPT
LAWS399EVIDENCELAWNOTES|TABLEOFCONTENTS
(1)INTRODUCTION;LITIGATIONSYSTEMS...................................................................2
(2)TRIALFUNDAMENTALS&JUDICIALDISCRETIONS...................................................7
(3)ADDUCINGEVIDENCEI.........................................................................................25
(4)ADDUCINGEVIDENCEII........................................................................................46
(5)PROOF&RELEVANCE...........................................................................................61
(6)HEARSAYEVIDENCEI............................................................................................92
(7)HEARSAYEVIDENCEII.........................................................................................103
(8)HEARSAYEVIDENCE/ADMISSIONIII....................................................................125
(9)OPINIONEVIDENCE............................................................................................154
(10)TENDENCY&COINCIDENCEEVIDENCE..............................................................184
(11)CREDIBILITY&CHARACTEREVIDENCE..............................................................220
220
CREDIBILITY&CHARACTEREVIDENCE
(1)CREDIBILITYEVIDENCE
CredibilityEvidence- Evidencethatgoestothecredibilityofawitnessandtheirreliability
o Ifthewitnessisbelievablethentheirevidenceisconsideredtobereliable- Probativeaboutawitness’sreliability- Thiskindofevidenceisdifferenttohearsay,opinion,admissionsbecausethey
haveallbeenaboutthefactsinissue- Credibilityevidenceisnotaboutfactsinissue
o Evidenceaboutawitness- Evidenceaboutcollateralfactstofactsinissue
o Similartoothercollateralfactsevidencesuchasevidenceoffactsthatmightamounttotendencyandcoincidentalevidence
- Probativeaboutawitness’sreliability
DefinitionofCredibilityEvidence
- DictionaryofEvidenceAct1995(NSW)o Partlyhelpfulbutdoesn'tgiveusthefullstoryo “Credibility”ofawitnessmeansthecredibilityofanypartorallofthe
evidenceofthewitness,andincludesthewitness’sabilitytoobserveorrememberfactsandeventsaboutwhichthewitnesshasgiven,isgivingoristogiveevidence
- AnalysisofDictionaryo Mightrefertothetotalityofthewitness’sevidenceoritmightsimply
refertoonepieceofevidencethattheyhavegiveno Thisdefinitiononlyattemptstoaddresscredibilitybutdoesn'tattemptto
addresscredibilityEVIDENCEo Itincludesmattersthatarerelevanttothewitness’s:
§ Reputation§ Expertise
221
§ Honesty§ Motive
• Toexaggerate• Tolie
§ Consistencyorinconsistencywithotherstatementsthattheyhavemade
§ Abilitytorecallevents§ Abilitytomemoriseevents§ Abilitytoperceiveevents§ Abilitytoobserveevents§ Abilitytounderstandevents
o Whenyouputthemalltogether,therearetwobasicthingsthatthewitness’scredibilityrefersto
- Generally,TWObasicthingsaboutthecredibilityoftheevidenceo 1.Thingsthatareassociatedwiththeirhonesty,varsityetc.o 2.Theircapacityandtheiropportunitytoperceiveevents;understand
whatthey’veseen
RelevancyofCredibilityEvidence
- RELEVANCYEventhoughitisnotaboutfactsinissuedirectly,itisrelevantevidencebecauseitindirectlyaffectstheprobabilityoftheexistenceofthefactsaboutwhichthewitnessisgivingevidence
§ Relevantbecauseitaffectstheprobabilitythatthewitnessittellingthetruth,recallevents,witnessismistakenornotmistakenaboutwhatthey’veseen
- Credibilityevidenceisrelevantbecauseitindirectlyaffectstheassessmentoftheprobabilityoftheexistenceofafactinissue
- Section55(2)RelevanceEvidenceo 2)…evidenceisnottakentobeirrelevantonlybecauseitrelatesonly
to…thecredibilityofawitness
222
AdmissibilityofCredibilityEvidence
- Whyisthereanexclusionaryrule–whydoweexcludeit?- Rationaleofexclusion
o ByfocusingtoomuchonawitnessthereisadangerthattheFFmightstrayfromthemainissueandbeovertakenbyfactorsrelatingtothewitnessandthattheFFwillignoretheirverypurpose–todeterminethefactsinissue
o Problemscouldariseinthefactfindingprocess(DANGERS)§ Ifcourtsaretoowillingtohearaboutthecredibilityofwitnesses,
plaintiffs,defendants,otherwitnessesgenerally• Evidenceaboutcredibilitycansometimesbevery
misleading.Awitnesscouldbetellingthetruthaboutaparticularfactinissue,althoughgenerallytheymaybeapersonwithoutmuchcredit.Alsoawitnesscouldbelyingormistakenaboutafactinissuealthoughtheyaregenerallyapersonthatappearstobeverycredible.
§ Partiescouldbeleadingendlessevidenceaboutwhetheronewitnessismorebelievablethananotherwitnessetc.ThustheFFwouldthereforebedivertedfromtherealissueandenduponlythinkingaboutthesecollateralissues
o Thecommonlawandtheacthavegenerallytakentheviewthatsuchevidenceshouldbeexcludedbecauseofthedangerthatittakesthejury’seyeofitsprimarytask
§ Unlessitisimportantenough(CE)toadmitundersomeexceptions
LimitedtypesofEvidencethatwillbeconsideredCredibilityEvidence–thuswillnotbeadmissibleinwhicheventwewouldhavetogototheexceptions
- Whatwemeanbycredibilityevidencesothatiswouldbeinadmissibleandwewouldthereforehavetogototheexceptions
MainExclusionaryRule
- Section102–Thecredibilityruleo Credibilityevidenceaboutawitnessisnotadmissible.
223
- AnalysisofSection102o Itisnotadmissiblebutitisadmissibleunderthecertainexceptionsandit
canbeveryimportant§ Whyshouldcourtsnotbeabletohearabouttheseindirectly
relevantandcollateralissues?o Onceweknowthatwitnesseshaveamotivetoliethenthiswillaffectthe
factfindersreasoningprocessaboutthefactsinissueandtheycouldpossiblybeaffectedinanimportantway
o Section102hastobereadtogetherwithSection101A- Section101A:CredibilityEvidence
o Credibilityevidence,inrelationtoawitnessorotherperson,isevidencerelevanttothecredibilityofthewitnessorpersonthat:
§ A)isrelevantonlybecauseitaffectstheassessmentofthecredibilityofthewitnessorperson,or
§ B)isrelevant:• I)becauseitaffectstheassessmentofthecredibilityofthe
witnessorperson,and• II)forsomeotherpurposeforwhichitisnotadmissible,or
cannotbeused,becauseofaprovisionofParts3.2to3.6- AnalysisofSection101A
o Thissectionnarrowsthescopeofinadmissiblecredibilityevidenceinordertogivecourtsgreaterscopeforadmittingsuchevidencewhereitwouldbehelpfultothefact-finder
o Section101Athroughthiskeyprovision§ Wecanseethatevidencecanberelevanteitherforacredibility
purposeorforanon-credibilitypurposeo CredibilityPurpose
§ Evidencethataffectstheassessmentofthewitness’scredibility§ Ifevidenceisadmittedforacredibilitypurpose,itisadmittedfora
purposethatgoestothewitness’scredibilityo NonCredibilityPurpose
§ Evidencethatdoesnotaffecttheassessmentofthewitness’scredibility
- Credibilityevidencewillbeinadmissibleintwotypesofsituations–unlessthereisanexception
224
o 1.Wheretheevidenceisrelevantonlytothecredibilityofthewitnessandnothingelse(Section101A(A))
o 2.Whereevidenceisrelevanttothecredibilityofthewitnessandforsomeotherpurposeforwhichitisnotadmissible
§ OtherpurposeislimitedtoPart3.2-3.6(admission,hearsay,tendency,coincidence)
- Twokeyprovisionso Section101
§ Credibilityevidenceisadmissibleo Section101A
§ Defineswhatcredibilityevidencemaybeinanygivensituation
CombinedEffectsofSections101Aand102
o 1.Iftheevidenceisonlyaboutthecredibilityofawitness(i.e.relevantonlyforacredibilitypurpose),itisinadmissibleunlessitsatisfiesoneoftheexceptions
o 2.Iftheevidenceisrelevantforacredibilitypurposeandforanon-credibilitypurpose,anditisinadmissibleforthatforthatothernon-credibilitypurpose,itisalsoinadmissibleforitscredibilitypurposeunlessitsatisfiesoneoftheexceptions
o 3.Iftheevidenceisrelevantforacredibilitypurposeandforanon-credibilitypurpose,anditisadmissibleforthatotherpurpose,thenitbecomesadmissibleforitscredibilitypurposeaswell
o 4.Iftheevidenceiscompletelyprohibitedbyoneorotheroftheexclusionaryrules,itcannotbeusedforacredibilitypurposeoranyotherpurpose
Examplesofhowtheabovecouldwork
- Example1–wheretheotherpurposemightbeahearsaypurposeo Wherethewitnesshasmadeapriorstatementwhichsupportsthe
prosecutioncaseandthencomestocourtandgivesunfavourableevidenceatthetrial(i.e.priorinconsistentstatementsituation).
225
o E.g.Thewitnesswaspresentatthescene,theysawsomethingandtellpolicethattherewasabigfightandtheysawAdamwithaknifeinhishand.Thentheycometocourtlaterandtheysaytheydidn’tseeanything–thusPIC
o DualRelevance§ YouwanttogetevidenceinofthatPIC.Thepriorstatementto
policeisapreviousrepresentation.§ ThatPRisrelevantbothforthecredibilityofthewitnessandto
thetruthofthefactsthatareassertedinthatPR–alsorelevantforahearsaypurposebecauseitgoesdirectlytothetruthoftheassertedfact(factinissue–hehadaknifeinhishand)
o Categories§ Becauseitisofadualrelevancepurpose–itdoesn'tfitintothefirst
categoryabove(section101A[A])o DoesitfallwithinSection101A(B)?
§ Ifitisnotadmissibleforitshearsaypurposeorotherexceptions,thenYES,itiscredibilityevidenceanditisinadmissibleundersection102unlessyougothroughtheexceptionssuccessfully
§ Ifitadmissibleforitshearsaypurpose(firsthandhearsay-makerisavailable)thenitsadmissibleforthathearsaypurposeandthecredibilityrulewouldnotapplyanditcouldbeusedtoassessthewitness’scredibilitywithouthavingtogothroughthecredibilityexceptions
- Example2–OpinionEvidenceo Wehaveaplaintiffwhoisinjured.Hegivesevidencetoadoctorabout
whathappenedandinthere,therearestatementsabouthowtheaccidenthappenedetc.Wemayhavehisdoctor’sreporttobeadmittedthatexpressesanopinionanditcorroboratesaplaintiff’sversionofevents.
o Canweusethedoctorsreportnotonlyforitsopinionpurposebutalsoforitscredibilitypurpose–tobolstertheplaintiff’scredibilityinrelationtothetestimonyhehasgiveninwhichthewayhewasinjured?
§ 1.Ifthestatementisadmissibleforitsopinionpurpose(e.g.specialisedknowledgeexception)thenthatmakesitadmissiblealsoforitscredibilitypurpose
226
§ 2.Ifthestatementisinadmissibleundertheopinionexceptions(e.g.doesn’tsatisfySKexception)thenthatstatementwouldalsobeinadmissibleforacredibilitypurposeunlessacredibilityexceptionissuccessful
- Example3–Admissionso Iftheevidenceisofanadmissionwhichisthenruledinadmissiblebecause
itwasobtainedunderthreatofviolence(84),orbecauseitwasunreliablebecauseofthecircumstancesinwhichitwasmade(85),ornotsigned(86).
§ Thentheevidencewouldfallundersection101A(B)unlessexceptionsaresuccessful
- Thusitisnecessarytoidentifythepurposeofpurposesforwhichtheevidenceisrelevant
o Iftheevidencerelevanttocredibilityoristheevidencerelevanttofactsinissueorisitrelevanttoboth?
Howdowedistinguishbetweenevidencethatisrelevanttocredibilityandevidencerelevanttoissue?
- TheKeyistounderstandthatthereisoftenverylittleevidencerelevanttocredibilitybutitisnotatthesametimerelevanttofactsinissue
- PalmervR(1998)151ALR16–McHughJo ‘Thelinebetweenevidencerelevanttocreditandevidencerelevanttoa
factinissue,isoftenindistinctandunhelpful’o Therationalefordistinguishingbetweencredibilityevidenceand
evidencethatgoestofactinissueisnotadistinctionthatisbasedonLOGIC
§ Thedistinctionisoneofefficiencyandexpediency§ It'sapragmaticdistinctionthatthecommonlawandevidenceact
makesinordertopreventlitigationfrombeingside-trackedintomarginalissuesandtimewasting.
o ‘Evidenceconcerningthecredibilityofthewitnessisasrelevanttoproofofanissueasarethefactsopposedtobythewitness’
o Example
227
§ Thereisnodifferencebetweenacceptingthatacarwentthrougharedlight(FII)andacceptingthewitnesswhosaysthatthecarwentthroughtheredlight(credibility)
• Ifyouacceptthatthewitnessiscrediblethenyouhavebasicallyacceptedtheirevidencethatthecarwentthroughtheredlight–viceversa
o Thus,ifyoucangettheevidenceinunderahearsayexception,opinionexceptionetc.
§ Thenitwillbereliableenoughtobetakenintoacredibilitypurposeaswell
- TraditionalcommonlawmethodfortestingwhetherapieceofevidenceisrelevantonlytocredibilityandthereforeinadmissibleorrelevanttobothcredibilityandfactsinissuecomesfromAttorneyGeneralvHitchcock(downbelow)
o SUMMARY§ Weknowthatcredibility
- AttorneyGeneralvHitchcock(1847)1Exchequer91–PolockCBo JusticePolocksaid:youshouldaskthefollowingquestions:
§ 1.Isthemattersufficientlyrelevanttothefactsinissuethatthepartywouldhavebeenpermittedtoleadevidenceofitinexaminationinchief(caseinchief)regardlessofwhetherornottheparticularwitnesswasgivingevidence
• Ifitis,itisrelevanttocredibilityandissue• Ifit’snot,itsrelevantonlytocredibility
o IftherelevanceoftheevidencedependsonwhetherornotaPARTICULARPERSONisgivingtheevidence(thiswastheFIRSTQUESTIONBYJUSTICEPOLLOCKINAGVH)
§ It’slikelythattheevidenceisrelevantonlytothecredibilityofthewitness.
o Example§ Situation1:Assumethatwehaveawitnessandthatwitnessgives
evidencethatthewitnesssaidshesawtheHoldengothroughtheredlight.Ifthatwitnesswas100mawayfromthescene–anyevidencethatgoestoshowingthatshehadasightimpairmentor
228
thatshewasn'twearingglassesatthetime–thatsortofevidencewouldberelevantonlytohercredibility
• Thisisbecauseifthewitnesswasnotgivingevidenceabouttheaccident,thefactthatshewasshort-sightedwouldnotberelevantatalltothecase
§ Situation2:Sayyouhaveevidenceofthewitnessthatshecouldn'thaveseenthatbecauseshewasoverseasonthatday.Ifitturnsoutthatshewasoverseas,thenevidenceofthiskindwouldbeveryrelevant(highprobativevalue)butthatevidencewouldberelevantonlytohercredibility.
§ Ifthewitnesswasnotgivingevidenceaboutthisaccident,thenthefactthatshewasoverseasornotwouldbetotallyirrelevanttotheproceedingsunlessanexceptioncouldbeapplied
o WouldtheprosecutionintheabovematterbeallowedtoleadtheevidenceinEIC(aboutsightimpairment)regardlessofwhetherornottheparticularwitnesswasgivingevidence
§ NO.Anyquestionsdirectedatthewitnessaboutthesethingswouldclearlyberelevanttocredibilityonlyandwouldcomewithinthefirstcategoryofsection101Aanditwouldbeinadmissiblebecauseofsection102unlessexceptions.
- SummaryofCredibilityEvidenceo 1.Weknowthatcredibilityevidenceisbasicallyaboutawitnesses’
reliabilityandhonestyononehandandontheotherhandtheircapacityandopportunitytoperceive,observeandunderstandevents
o 2.Ifthewitnessisaboutthewitnessthemselves,thisisagoodindicationthatishasacredibilitypurpose.
o 3.Todecidewhetherapieceofevidencedoeshaveacredibilitypurpose,youcanaskthequestion:
§ IsthatevidenceSORELEVANTtothefactinissuethatitcouldbeleadinthepartiescaseinchief
• Ifitis:o it’sunlikelytoberelevantonlytocredibility
• Ifit'snotrelevantinthatwayo It’slikelytoberelevanttocredibilityONLY
229
o 4.EvidencethatonlyhasacredibilitypurposeisadmissiblebecauseitfallswithinSection101A(A)unlessexception
§ however,weknowthatevidencemayhaveacredibilitypurposeandalsosomeotherpurpose
o 5.Evidencethathasacredibilityandsomeotherpurpose§ Mightbeadmissiblebutitsonlyadmissibleforitscredibilityonlyif
itisadmissibleforthatotherpurpose• Ifitisnotadmissibleforthatotherpurpose,itisnot
admissibleforitscredibilitypurposeother§ ^Theevidencemaystillbeadmissibleifanexceptioncanbefound
Twoprincipalwaysofgettingcredibilityevidenceintoevidenceare:
- 1.Toarguethattheevidenceisadmissibleforanotherpurpose(anon-credibilitypurpose)andacredibilitypurposeatthesametime.Andthusgetitinthroughsection101A(B)
o Weareavoidingsection102inthiswaybyusingsection101A- 2.Toarguethatevidenceshouldbeadmittedunderoneofthecredibility
exceptionso InthiswayweareusingtheexceptionstoSection102
EXCEPTIONStotheCredibilityRule
- Ifweendupwithevidencethatisrelevantforthewitness’scredibilityorforanotherpurposeforwhichitisinadmissiblethenwehavetogototheexceptions,asitoffendsthecredibilityrule.
- Theseexceptionsbasicallyapplyinthecontentof3situationso 1.SITUATION1
§ Attackcredibilityoftheopponent’switness(mostcommon)• Sections103and104
o 2.SITUATION2§ Wherewearebolsteringorre-establishingthecredibilityofour
ownwitnessbecausetheircredibilityhasbeendamagedorcomprised
o 3.SITUATION3
230
§ Attackingthecredibilityofourownwitness(unfavourablewitnesssection38)–notascommonasthose2above
SITUATION1:ATTACKINGCREDIBILITYOFTHEOPPONENTSWITNESS
Section103Exception:Cross-examinationastocredibility
- Section103Exception:Cross-examinationastocredibilityo 1)Thecredibilityruledoesnotapplytoevidenceadducedincross-
examinationofawitnessiftheevidencecouldsubstantiallyaffecttheassessmentofthecredibilityofthewitness.
o 2)Withoutlimitingthematterstowhichthecourtmayhaveregardforthepurposesofsubsection(1),itistohaveregardto:
§ A)Whethertheevidencetendstoprovethatthewitnessknowinglyorrecklesslymadeafalserepresentationwhenthewitnesswasunderanobligationtotellthetruth,and
§ B)Theperiodthathaselapsedsincetheactsoreventstowhichtheevidencerelatesweredoneoroccurred.
- AnalysisofSection103o Inthissection,youwantto:
§ Crossexaminesomeonetoshowthattheyarelying,fabricatingevidenceorsomehowtheirabilitytorecallwhattheysawiscompromisedorthattheyweren’tinanygoodpositiontoseewhattheyclaim,perceiveite.g.
o AimofSection103§ Toimpeachthecredibilityofthewitnessduringthecross
examinationofthatwitness§ Youcanaskthemanythingthatisrelevanttotheircredibilityifit
couldsubstantiallyaffecttheFF’sassessmentoftheircredibilityasawitness
§ Thecourtmaytakeanymatterintoaccountbutmusttakeintoaccount:
• 1)Anythingthatestablishedthatthewitnesshaslied
231
• 2)Amountoftimebetweentheeventandgivingoftheevidence
o Thissectionhasahigherthresholdthanatcommonlaw(substantially)§ CommonLaw
• Almostanyquestionaboutthewitness’credibilitywasallowed
§ ALRC• Explainedthattheyhavetriedtotightenthisupsoyou
aren’tabletoattackthewitness’scredibilitytotally,therearesomelimitations
• Awitnessshouldnolongerbeopentocross-examinationonanynegativeaffectaspectofcharacterormisconductonthebasisthatisrelevanttocredibility
• Emphasisshouldbeplacedonevidenceofconductwhichissimilartotestifyinguntruthfully
o Involvesfalsestatementsandwhichtookplaceincircumstancesimilartothosetestifying
• Obligationtotellthetrutho Onlyunderthisobligationwhenthereissomelegal
requiremento Justbecauseyouarealiarbynature
§ That'snotenough.Therehastobesomeindicationthatyoutendtoliewhilstunderanobligationtotellthetruth
o Purposeof103§ Istoallowcross-examinationonarangeofmattersthatarise
typicallyfromtheEICofwitnesses,suchas:• Theircapacityandopportunityforaccurateobservationand
recollection• Motivesforbeinguntruthful• Theirpriorconvictionsaslongasthoseconvictionsare
reasonablyrecentandreflectiveofdishonestygenerally• Priorinconsistentstatementsabouttheeventsthatarein
question
232
o Theircontradictionsintheevidencethattheyhavegiveninoroutsideofcourt
• Anyfailuresbythewitnesstotellthetruthwhilstunderanobligationtotellthetruth
- Thesemattersarelimitedtoconductorcharacteristicsofthewitnesswhichwouldlogicallyandrationallyweakenconfidenceandtheirtrustworthinessasawitness,notasaperson(caseofBickel)
- BickelvJohnFairfax&Sons[1981]2NSWLR474o Facts
§ BickelwasasciencewriterfortheABCandotherplaces.Hewroteabook‘DeadlyElement’abouturaniumetc.
§ Therewasascathingbookreviewofhisbookthatwaspublishedin1980inanewspaperintheNationalTimes.Bickelsuedfordefamation.HesuedJohnFairfaxandSonsfordefamation.
§ Hewonthecaseandthejuryawardedhimdamages.o JusticeHuntinNSWSupremeCourt
§ RefusedtoallowquestionsincrossexaminationofBickelabouthispoliticalbeliefs–supposedconnectionstocommunistpartyetc.
§ Hesaid:theabovecrossexamination(politics)wasnotdirectedtoshowinghiscredibilityorhisvarsityasawitness.Itwasdirectedtoprejudicingthecourtagainstthewitnessasaperson.
• Thiswasnotallowed
Section104FurtherProtections:Crossexaminationastocredibility
- Section104FurtherProtections:Crossexaminationastocredibilityo 1)Thissectionappliesonlytothecredibilityevidenceinacriminal
proceedingandsoappliesinadditiontosection103o 2)Adefendantmustnotbecross-examinedaboutamatterthatis
relevanttotheassessmentofthedefendant’scredibility,unlessthecourtgivesleave
o 3)Despitesubsection(2)leaveisnotrequiredforcross-examinationbytheprosecutoraboutwhetherthedefendant
§ A)isbiasedorhasamotivetobeuntruthful,or
233
§ B)is,orwas,unabletobeawareoforrecallmatterstowhichhisorherevidencerelates,or
§ C)hasmadeapriorinconsistentstatemento 4)Leavemustnotbegivenforcrossexaminationbytheprosecutorunder
subsection(2)unlessevidenceadducedbythedefendanthasbeenadmittedthat:
§ A)Tendstoprovethatawitnesscalledbytheprosecutorhasatendencytobeuntruthful,and
§ B)Isrelevantsolelyormainlytothewitness’scredibilityo 6)Leaveisnottobegivenforcross-examinationbyanotherdefendant
unless:§ A)theevidencethatthedefendanttobecross-examinedhasgiven
includesevidenceadversetothedefendantseekingleavetocross-examine,and
§ B)Thatevidencehasbeenadmitted- AnalysisofSection104
o Section104startswiththegeneralpropositionthatleaveofthecourtisrequiredtoCEadefendantabouttheircredibilityexceptsomecertainsituationsin104(3)
o Thisprovisionsaysthatsection103continuedtoapply§ Itappliesinadditiontosection103
o YoustillhavetopasstheSection103test(sustainablyaffectingthecredibilityofthewitnesstobeadmissible)
§ However,section104(3)qualifiestheprecedingrulequiteheavilyo Accordingto104(3)
§ LeaveisnotrequiredwheretheprosecutorisCEtoaccusedandiftheevidencegoestothematters:
• 1)Biasedinrelationtoaparticularmatteroraspectofthecaseratherthanhisbiasinthegeneraoutcomeofthecase
• 2)motiveinrelationtoaparticularaspect• 3)Abilitytorecollectorperceiveevents• 4)Anypriorinconsistentstatements
234
o Accordingto104(4)§ Wheretheaccusedhasadducedevidencethatgoestowards
attackingthecharacterofaprosecutionwitnessonthebasisoftheprosecutionwitnesshasbeenuntruthfuletc.thentheprosecutorisallowedtocross-examinethedefendantastothedefendant’scharacteretc.
§ Rationale• Thejuryisentitledtoknowthecreditonwho’swordsthe
prosecution’switness’characterisbeingattacked• IftheDattacksaprosecution’switness’credibility,thenyou
canattackthecredibilityofthewitnesswithoutleavebecauseweareentitledtoknowaboutthecredibilityofthepersonwhoattacksourcredibility.
o 104(6)–protectionforco-defendants§ Sometimeswithaco-defendant,thedefendantswillgoagainst
eachother.• E.g.toattackthemandadduceevidencethatmakesthem
guilty§ Aco-defendantwillbeabletocross-examinethedefendantwill
leaveisthedefendant’sevidenceisatleastinpartadversetotheco-defendant
§ Adversemeans:• Anyevidencethatobjectivelysupportstheprosecution’s
caseagainsttheco-defendant• Ifthisisthecase–youmaycrossexaminethedefendant
withleave.o Whenacourtisdecidingwhethertograntleaveornot
§ ThejudgemusthaveregardtocertainmattersinSection192• E.g.lengthofhearing,unfairness,natureofproceedings,
gravityofoffence,alternativeordersordirectionsetc.• Themostimportantofthosefactorswouldbeany
unfairnesstothedefendant
235
- StanoevskivTheQueen(2001)202CLR115o Facts:inthiscasethecourtgaveleavetocross-examinethedefendant
aboutapriorincident.Thiswasthelegalpractitionerwhohadneverbeenintroubleinherlifeandsomehowshewaschargedwithbeinginvolvedwithsomesortofinsurancescamonacar.
§ Shesaid:noIdidn'tdoit,amIthesortofperson.Sheraisedhercharacter.Theyweregoingtocross-examineheraboutlawsocietyinvestigationaboutwhethershehadproperlywitnessesaclient’ssignatureonadocument.
o Thejudgeallowedthejudgetocross-examineheraboutthisissue(client)§ thejudgeallowedthisandthetrialjudgegaveadirectiontothe
jurythattherewasnoevidencethatshehadforgedanysignaturebuttheallegationthatshecouldhavewitnessedthesignatureincorrectly,couldaffectthejury’sassessmentofhercharacter.
o HighCourt§ HighCourtwasnothappywiththetrialjudgeandsection102.They
heldthatshewascross-examinedinbreachoftheevidenceact.Herconvictionwasthereforenottostandunlesstheprosecutioncouldestablishthattherewasnomiscarriageofjustice.
- Thusjudgeshavetobecarefulwhengivingleave.o Itcouldpotentiallyleadthejurytomisusetheevidenceadducedinthe
crossexaminationo Example
§ Evidenceofatendencythattheyhave.Atendencytobeviolent.Wheretheevidencewouldotherwisebeinadmissibleastendencyevidence.
§ You’regettingtendencyevidencethroughthebackdoor–it’sgottohavesignificantprobativevaluebutpeopletryandgetitinthroughleaveforcredibility(thiswasinthecaseofMatusevichvTheQueen)
236
- MatusevichvTheQueen(1977)137CLR633o Facts
§ Thedefendantsraisedcertainissuesaboutthecredibilityandcharacterofhisco-defendantMatusevich
§ Matusevichsaidthathisco-defendantwascrazyandthat'swhyhedidthedamage
o CrossExamine§ Wasallowedonthebasisthathehadimpugnedthecharacterof
theco-accused.§ Thencross-examinedaboutthisowncredibilityandcharacter
• Specifically,abouthispriorconvictionsandheendedupbeingconvicted
o Appeal§ Saidthatthatwasdoneincorrectlybecausebycrossexamininghim
aboutthispriorconvictions,thejurywereallowedtoseehispriorconvictions
• Thesewereactsofviolence,seriousassaults§ Hearguedthattheevidenceabouthispriorconvictionsobtained
throughcross-examinationwereinadmissibleandthehighcourtagreedandsaidthatthecrownshouldnothavetakenadvantageofthefactthatoneco–accusedgaveevidenceadversetoanotherco-accusedinordertoraisetheircredibilityorcharacteranissue.
• Onlytheco-accusedwhointerestwasadverselyaffectedcoulddothat
§ ThiswasunfairtoMatusevichbecausethejurywouldhaveseenthisasevidencethatwentagainsthim.
• Histendencytobeviolent,escapefromcustody• Whichotherwisewouldhavebeeninadmissibleiftheytried
togetitinthroughevidenceoftendencyo E.g.significantprobativevalue,notice–test
§ Thecourtsaidthegrantingofleavetothecrowninsuchcasesislikelytobeextremelyrare.
237
Section106Exception:Rebuttingdenialsbyotherevidence
- Section106Exception:Rebuttingdenialsbyotherevidenceo 1)Thecredibilityruledoesnotapplytoevidencethatisrelevanttoa
witness’scredibilityandthatisadducedotherwisethanfromthewitnessif:
§ A)Incross-examinationofthewitness:• I)Thesubstanceoftheevidencewasputtothewitness,and• II)Thewitnessdenied,ordidnotadmitoragreeto,the
substanceoftheevidence,and§ B)Thecourtgivesleavetoadducetheevidence
o 2)Leaveundersubsection(1)(b)isnotrequirediftheevidencetendstoprovethatthewitness”
§ A)Isbiasedorhasamotiveforbeinguntruthful,or§ B)Hasbeenconvictedofanoffence,includinganoffenceagainst
thelawofaforeigncountry,or§ C)Hasmadeapriorinconsistentstatement,or§ D)Is,orwasunabletobeawareofmatterstowhichhisorher
evidencerelates,or§ E)Hasknowinglyorrecklesslymadeafalserepresentationwhile
underanobligation,imposedbyorunderanAustralianlaworalawofaforeigncountry,totellthetruth.
- AnalysisofSection106o Whatthissectionmeans
§ Whathappenswhenanallegationisputtoawitnessinordertounderminetheircredibilityincross-examinatione.g.andthewitnessdeniesthatallegation.
§ Canthecrossexaminerleadevidenceinrebuttalofthedenial?i.e.toprovethetruthoftheallegation
o TheevidenceacthasmovedonfromtheCommonLawinthisarea§ CommonLaw
• Generally,itsaysthatcredibilityissuesarecollateralissues.Wheretheallegationisrelevantonlytothecredibilityofthewitness,theanswerthatthewitnessgivesshouldbe
238
regardedasfinaleventhoughtheFFdoesn'thavetoacceptthatanswerastrue.
• Thecross-examinermaynotthenleadevidencetodisprovetherebuttal.
• Thisisbasedonefficiencyandfairnesso Asotherwise,ifyoudidallowthatthenyouhaveto
allowtheothersidetobringinevidencetodisprovetherebuttalanditgoesonforever.
o Itwouldencourageendlesscollateralissuesandthustakenyoureyeoffthefactinissue.
• ThisdangerisillustratedbyGoldsmithcaseo AstoSection106(2)
§ Otherevidencemaybebroughtin.Whereasthecommonlawhassaidyoudon'tdoit–ittakesyoureyeoffeverything.
§ OtherevidencemaybebroughtintorebuttaladenialaslongasthesubstanceoftheevidencewasputtothewitnessinCEaftertheCrossExaminerwasgivenpermissiontoCEaboutthematterundersection103(sustainablyaffectetc.)andthewitnesseitherdenieditordidnotagreetoitandthecourtgivesleave(section192)
- GoldsmithvSandilands(2002)190ALR370o Facts
§ Wehadacivilcase.Policeofficerwasapassengerinapolicecar.Thatpolicecarwasinvolvedinsomepolicebusiness.Thepolicecarwasinvolvedinacaraccidentandthepoliceofficerwasinjured.
§ Heroutinelysuedforhisinjuries–hesuedthepolicedepartmentandthedriverofthecar.
o Evidence§ Evidencewasgivenbythedriverofthecar(defendant)thata
coupleofdaysbeforetheaccident,theplaintiff(injuredpoliceofficer)playedindoorcricketwithhim.Hecomplainedatthetimethathehad‘stuffedhisback’.Thentwodayslatertherewasthecaraccident.
o CrossExamined
239
§ TheyCEtheplaintiffaboutthat.Theplaintiffdeniedsayinghestuffedhisbackbuthedidagreethathedidagreeheplayedindoorcricketbeforetheaccident.
o Problem§ Itbecameclearthatthedriverwhoraisedthisissuecouldn't
rememberwheretheyhadplayedindoorcricket.Thenthedriver’scouncilCEtheplaintiffabouttheexactaddressofthevenue.Hecouldn'tremembereither.
§ ThiswentoutofcontrolandwasunnecessarybecausethePalreadyconcededheplayedcricket.
o Councilfortheplaintiffsortsleave§ Tore-openthecasetoleadevidenceprovingthelocationofwhere
theyplayedcricketinordertobolsterhiscredibility.§ Thiswasrefused.
o HighCourt§ HCagreedthatitshouldhavebeenrefused.§ Basis:Thelocationofwheretheyplayedcricketwasacollateral
issueinviewoftheplaintiff’sconcessionthathehadplayedcricket.Ifhehaddenied,possiblywouldhavebeenlegitimatetopursuethisrelevanttohiscredit.Evenifithappened,stillacollateralissue
o JusticeMcHugh§ Calledforgreaterflexibilityonthiskindofevidence.Thiswas
providedforbyallowingforleavetobegivenundersection106(2)- Thisisessentiallywheresomebodyhasdeniedsomethingputtothemincross
examinationthatgoestotheircredibilityo Towhatextentareyouallowedtoseekevidencetorebutthedenialo Clearly,thecourtwillwanttoputa‘cap’onthiskindofevidenceunlessit
goestoseriousmattersrelatingtothecredibilityofthewitnesso Otherwiseitisnotthatimportant(e.g.whereyouplayedcricket)
240
SITUATION2:BOLSTERINGTHECREDBILITYOFOUROWNWITNESS
Section108Exception:re-establishingcredibility
- Section108Exception:re-establishingcredibilityo 1)Thecredibilityruledoesnotapplytoevidenceadducedinre-
examinationofawitnesso 3)Thecredibilityruledoesnotapplytoevidenceofapriorinconsistent
statementofawitnessif:§ A)Evidenceofapriorinconsistentstatementofthewitnesshas
beenadmitted,or§ B)Itisorwillbesuggested(eitherexpresslyorbyimplication)that
evidencegivenbythewitnesshasbeenfabricatedorre-constructed(whetherdeliberatelyorotherwise)oristheresultofasuggestion,andthecourtgivesleavetoadducetheevidenceofthepriorconsistentstatement
- AnalysisofSection108o Wherethecredibilityofawitnesshasbeenunderminedduringcross
examination,thenthepartycallingthewitnessmayleavecredibilityevidenceinre-examinationtorestorethewitness’scredibility,eventhoughsuchevidencewouldnothavebeenpermittedtobeledinexaminationinchief
o AstoSection108(1)§ Thecredibilityruledoesnotapplywhenwearere-examiningour
ownwitnesses§ Thiswilltakeplaceinre-examinationandrememberthatsection39
limitsre-examinationtocertainthings• Limitstomattersarisingoutofcrossexaminationormatters
forwhichthecourtgivesleave• Thisincludessituationswheremattersrelevanttocredibility
havebeenraisedincrossexaminationandtheyweredeniedbyyourwitnessandthentheywererebuttedbythecross-examiner
§ Youcanuse108(1)torebuttherebuttalofyourownwitnesso AstoSection108(3)
241
§ Itcreatestwoexceptions.• 1.Section108(3)(a):whereyouwanttoleadevidenceofa
priorinconsistentstatementthatisconsistentwithwhattheysaidinexaminationinchief
o Youtryandbringinevidenceofapriorconsistentstatement(statementthatisconsistentwithwhattheysaidinEICbutwhichhasbeendiminishedinCE)
o YoumaydosotocountertheweightofthePICwithevidenceofthePCStorestorethewitness’scredibility
• 2.Section108(3)(b):torebutanallegationofrecentinventionincrossexamination
o Nowyouareraisingthisissueforthefirsttimeandthisisrecentinvention,fabricationorre-constructionthatresultsofasuggestionetc.
o Iftheysay‘no,it’snot’–thenevidencemaybeleadofpaststatementsthatareconsistentwiththewitness’sevidencetodiminishanysuggestionofrecentinventionorfabrication
o Leaveofthecourtisrequired§ Inexercisingdiscretiontogiveornottogiveleave,thecourtshould
mostlyhaveregardtotherelevanceofthepriorconsistentstatementtotheactualattackofthewitness’scredibility
§ Coulddependonthe(1)timingand(2)circumstancesofthepriorconsistentstatement
- RvCassar[1999]NSWSC352o GivesanexampleofhowSection108canbeusedasitcanbevery
effectiveinrestoringyourwitness’scredibilityo Facts
§ Criminalmatter.Therewasawitnessincourtandhesaidhesawtheaccusedandanotheraccusedpushthevictimandstabthevictim.
§ Whenhefirstspoketopolice,hesaidthathedidn'tseeanythingbutincourthesaidhesawthemstabbingandpushingthevictim.
242
§ Sevenmonthsafterhefirstmadethatstatementtothepolice,hechangedhismindandhetoldthepolice–IreallydidseesomethingbutthereasonIsaidIdidn'tseesomething(attheBEG)wasbecauseIwasafraidofthreatsmadeagainstmeandmyfamily.
o Court§ Itwasputtohimthatallofthiswasafabricationandtocounter
this,theprosecutionwasgivenleavetoleadevidencethatthewitnesshadtoldafriendbeforehemadetheinitialstatementtothepolice,thathehadseenthevictimbeingstabbedandthathehadbeenthreatenedaboutgivingevidence.
§ Thissortofcounteredandexplainedhisactions§ Thatconsistentstatementwasusedtobolsterhiscredibility
SITUATION3:ATTACKINGOWNWITNESS(UNFAVOURABLEWITNESSES)
- Awitnesscalledbyapartytogiveevidence,thatwitnessmayturnouttobeunfavourable–thenthepartythatcalledthatwitnessmaybeabletocross-examinetheirownwitnessundersection38andthecross-examinationmayincludeCEonmattersrelevantonlytotheircredibility(withleaveofthecourt)
ShortSummary
1. Youcan’tleaveevidenceofcredibilityunlessitisadmissibleforanotherpurposesotherwiseyouhavetogototheexceptions
2. Theseexceptionsarealldesignedtobeabletogetcredibilityoutincircumstanceswhereitwouldbeusefulforthefactfinder.
3. Workthroughthosethreesituationsandworkthroughtheexceptionsifitisnotadmissible
243
(2)CHARACTEREVIDENCE
GeneralInformation&Background
- WithcharacterevidencewearetalkingspecificallyaboutPart3.8oftheEvidenceact–thereareonly4provisions
o Section109o Section110o Section111o Section112
FewPreliminaryThingsaboutCharacterandCharacterEvidence
- Characterisnotdefinedintheevidenceacto Itcombinedmoral,ethical,psychologicalattributesetc.
- MelbournevTheQueen(HIGHCOURTDECISION)o Characterwasdescribedastheaggregateofqualitieswhichdistinguishes
onepersonfromanother,oro Themoralconstitutionofapersono Embodiesthepermanentandunchangingpatternofthenatureofthe
individualconcerned
Evidenceaboutaperson’scharactercanberelevantinseveraldifferentcontexts
- 1.Thewitness’sdisplayedatendencytoactinaparticularwayortohaveaparticularstateofmind(tendency)isregardedasevidenceoftheircharacterandwesawthatifthat'stheevidenceyouwanttoadduceinordertoestablishthattheyhaveaparticulartendency
o YoucandothatbutyouhavetodoitthroughSection97(tendency)andtheexceptionstoSection97
- 2.Characterisaformofcredibilityevidenceinthesensethataparticularperson’scharactergoestotheirhonesty,varsity,reliability,credibilityetc.
o Inthiscontext–evidenceofthewitnessescharacterinsofarasitrelatestotheircredibilityofawitnessissubjecttotherulesinPart3.7
§ Generally,itisinadmissibleifitgoesonlytotheircredibility(unlessexception)
244
- 3.Part3.8–‘Character’o Thispartdealsonlywiththecharacterofanaccusedpersonincriminal
proceedings.Itgotaveryspecificandlimitedfocuso Theyarenotrelevantincivilcasesandthiscontext,characterevidence
canonlyberelevantfortheevidencegivenbyadefendantoraco-defendant,nottowitnessesgenerally.
o However,youcanattackthecredibilityofawitnessgenerallybutthishastobedonethroughtendencyandcredibility
§ Butunder3.8itisonlyincriminalcaseswherethecharacteristhecharacterofthedefendantortheco-defendant
Historically,therewereinterestingthingsinthisarea
- Alongtimeago:o Defendantscouldn'tgiveevidenceintheirowntrialo Theycouldn'tgiveevidenceintheirowninterest
§ Noonewouldbelievethemo Thischangedinthelate19thcentury–afterwhichtheycouldgive
evidencegenerallyandbecross-examinedgenerally- Issuearoseincriminaltrial
o Aboutwhethertheycouldbecrossexaminedabouttheircharacter,theirpast,priorconduct,priorconvictions,reputation
o Therewasafearthatthejurywoulduseitinadangerouslyprejudicialway.
§ Asdefendantsdidn'treallyhavegoodcharactersandtheyweremorelikelytobeconvictedbythejury
o Dangerthatjurywouldconvictpeopleonthebasisoftheirpriorconducteveniftheywereunconvincedofthematterbeforethecourt
- Thuslegalisationallowedageneralrulethatdefendantscouldnotbecrossexaminedabouttheircharacterunlesstheyopentheircharacter
245
Section110:Evidenceaboutcharacterofaccusedpersons
- Section110:Evidenceaboutcharacterofaccusedpersonso 1)Thehearsayrules,theopinionrule,thetendencyruleandthecredibility
ruledonotapplytoevidenceadducedbyadefendanttoprove(directlyorbyimplication)thatthedefendantis,eithergenerallyorinaparticularrespect,apersonofgoodcharacter
- AnalysisofSection110o 1.Adefendantmayraiseevidenceoftheirgoodcharacterintheirdefence
andthisisachoicemadebythedefendantanditwouldbedesignedtoshowtotheFFthattheyarenotlikelytohavecommittedtheoffence,eitherinthegeneralorparticularsense.
o 2.Noneofthehearsayrules,theopinionrule,thetendencyruleandthecredibilityrulearerelevanttoapplyto:
§ Evidencethatthedefendantiseithergenerallyorparticularly,apersonofgoodcharacter
o GeneralSense§ Becausetheirgoodreputation,goodname–makeitgenerally
unlikelythattheywouldcommitacrimeofthiskind
o ParticularSense§ Becausetheyhavenotparticulartendencyofthekindthatthis
crimewouldbeexpectedtoexhibito AstoSection110(1)
§ Saythatthehearsay,tendency,opinionandcredibilityrulesaredisplacedproofofadefendantgoofcharactercanbeledbytheDinavarietyofwas
§ Noneofthoserulesapplytoit.§ Example
• YoucanhaveawitnesssaythatsheheardtheDhasagoodreputation–thisishearsaybutitdoesn'tapply
• Awitnessmightsaythatshehasagoodopinionofthisperson–opinionrule(doesn'tapply)
246
• Opinionofcharacterheldbyathirdperson(hearsay–doesn'tapply)
• EvidenceofatendencythattheDhas–helpingpeople(workingforcharityetc.)inordertoprovetheirgoodcharacter–tendencybutitdoesn'tapplyhere
o HOWEVERTheprosecutionmaynotraisethedefendantscharacteratallunlessthedefendanthasraiseditfirst
§ Thisiseveninsituationwherethecharacteroftheevidenceisraisedindirectlyorinadvertentlybythecrownwitnesses
§ Veryoftenyouhavepoliceofficerswhogaveevidence(whosawwhathappenedetc.)
§ Thedefendantisnotknowntothem• Theydon’tknowabouthim.Hehasgotnoreasontoever
cometotheattentionofthepolice–isthisevidenceofgoodcharacter
o ThepolicemaysaythatDhasnopriorconvictions,goodfamilymanetc.
o Wherethedefendanthasraisedhisowncharacter§ Thentheprosecutionandanyco-defendantareabletorebut
evidenceofthedefendant’sgoodcharacteralsoinawidevarietyofways
• VarietyofWays:Subsections2and3of110o Showthattherules(h,t,o,c)don'tapplytoany
evidenceadducedtoprovethattheDisnotofgoodcharacter
o Tacticalorforensicchoicemadebythedefendantwhichmayormaynothavebenefits
§ Sometimesitisusefulbutsometimesallsortsofcatastrophesarisewhenthedefendantraisestheirgoodcharacter
• TKWJo Itdoesnotdependonanyotherevidenceordirectionsofthejudge.
§ PKS
247
- TKWJvTheQueen[2002]HCA46o ChiefJusticeGleeson
§ Calleditarational,tacticaldecisionmadetoavoidaforensicrisk§ Itdoesnotdependonanyotherevidenceordirectionsforthe
judge.- TheQueenvPKS(unreported,NSWCCA,1October1998)
o Facts§ Dwaschargedwithsexualassaultofthechild.Dwasgenerallyof
goodcharacteralthoughhehadsomeveryolddishonestyoffencesandconvictionsbutnothingforalongtime.Hedidn'traisetheissueofhisgoodcharacterandbecausehedidn'traiseit,thecrowndidn'traiseiteither.
o Appeal§ Afterhewasconvicted,heappealedpartlyonthegroundthatthe
trialjudgegavenodirectionsastothepossibilityofhisbeingabletoraisehisgoodcharacter
o NSWCourtofCriminalAppeal§ Section110(1)givesachoicetotheD-theycanraiseittheirgood
character.§ Ifhechosetoraiseitgenerally,thentherewasariskthatthecrown
couldapplyundersection112tocrossexaminehimabouthisdishonestyoffences
§ Ifheraisedhisgoodcharactergenerally,thatwouldopenthedoorfortheprosecutiontorebutthiswithdishonestyoffences
§ Ifhechosetoraiseitinaparticularrespect(toshowhehadnoconvictionsinrelationtosexualassaultagainstchildren)thentheprosecutionwouldnotbeabletoraisethegeneraldishonestyoffencesastheyareoutsidethescope–heonlyraiseditontheparticularway
§ Ifhemadethewrongchoice–therewasnodutyonthetrialjudgetoraisetheissueatall.
§ Nodutyonthejudgetoraisethis,alluptothedefendant
248
Dualuseofcharacterevidence
- Evidenceofgoodcharacteradducedbyadefendantcouldbedirectedintwoways
o 1.Totheultimateissueoffact–toshowthathedidnotcommitthecrime(e.g.Stanovski)
o 2.ThecredibilityoftheD’sevidence–toshowthatDwasbelieveinevidencegenerallyorparticularevidence
GoodCharacterandBadCharacterEvidence
- Evidenceofadefendant’sgoodcharacterwhetheritgoestoultimateissueoronlytothecredibilitycanbeadmittedbythedefendantwithoutreferencetoitsprobativevalue
o Alloftheserulesdon'tapplytoitandPVdoesn'tapplytoit.o Hecanraisehisgoodcharacterwhichisacompletelydifferentsituationto
anyevidenceraisedbytheprosecutionabouthisbadcharacter- However,Crown’sevidenceabouttheBADCHARACTERneedsPV
o Hastohaveprobativevalueforittobeadmissible- Whytreattheevidenceofgoodcharacterinadifferentwaytoevidenceofbad
character?o MelbournevTheQueen
§ Thiskindofevidence(allowingevidenceofDoftheirgoodcharacter).Dcouldraiseevidenceaboutalongtimeagowherehewasnicetosomebody.Ithasn'tgotmuchPVbutwecanletitin.
§ Ifyouwanttoraisesomethingbadabouthim,youhavetohaveprobativevalue.
§ JusticeMcHughcalledthisacommonlawindulgence• Nologic.Acommonlawindulgenceinfavourofdefendants.
Basedinconsiderationoffairness,humanityandpolicy.TomakesurethatD’shaveprotectionsinthisarea
- ALRC–Raisingofgoodcharacterevidencecanbeproblematico Example
249
§ ThejurymaywronglyestimatethePVofthedefendant’sgoodcharacterandtheymaydecideanywrongdoingonthedefendant’spartisneutralisedorbalancedbyhispreviousgoodbehaviour.
• Thusitisunfairlyfavourableo Overall
§ TheALRCfeltthattherewasmorecompellingreasoningtoallowthemtoraisegoodcharacterevidencewithoutanyexceptions.
o TwoImportantSafeguards§ TheALRCinsistedthatevidenceofgoodcharactershouldbe
subjecttotwoveryimportantsafeguards.§ 1.Relevance–insection55.Evidenceofcharactershouldnotbe
admittedunlessitcouldrationallyaffectthefactfindassessmentoftheexistenceofafactinissue.
• E.g.evidenceofD’sgoodreputation.Thatwouldnotberelevanttoadefendantifthatdoctorisfacingchildsexualassaultcharged.Thefactthattheyareofgoodcharacterwouldbetotallyirrelevanttothefactinissue.
• However,ifthatdoctorhadaprovenrecordofworkingwithchildren–thenthatcouldbesomethingthatcouldbetakeninaccountfordeterminingtheexistenceofafactinissue.
§ 2.JudicialDiscretion–toexcludeevidence(S135,137)• thecourtneedstoassesswhethertheprejudicialeffectof
theevidencewilloutweighanyprobativevalueitmayhave.
250
DirectionstothejuryonCharacterEvidence
- ImportantQuestion–ObligationsofCourto Shouldajudgegiveanydirectionstothejuryinviewofthefactthatthe
prosecutionisrestrictedintermsofevidenceitmaywhichtoleadaboutD’sbadcharacterandinviewofthefactthattheDisvirtuallyunrestrictedwhentheDisgivingevidenceabouttheirgoodcharacter?
- MelbournevTheQueen(1999)198CLR1o Facts
§ Melbournewaschargedwithmurder–stabbinghisnextdoorneighbourtodeath.Misunderstandingaboutnoise.Hewasheavilyintoxicatedatthetimeandsortaconvictionformanslaughterinsteadofmurder.
o GoodCharacter§ Heraisedhisgoodcharacter.Hehadnotpriorconvictionsexcept
foroneveryolddrinkdrivingoffence.§ Therewasevidencefromthepolicethathewasnotknownto
them.Therewasevidencefromneighboursandfriendsthathewasanicequietman.Therewasalsoevidencethathehadmedicaltreatmentfordepression,substanceabuseetc.
o Directions§ Melbournewantedthejudgetodirectthejurythattheycoulduse
evidenceofhisgoodcharacterintwoways:• 1.Toshowhewasnotguiltyofmurder–improbability
reasoningo It’simprobablehecouldbeguiltyoftheoffence
becauseofhisgoodcharacter• 2.Todirectthejurythattheycoulduseevidenceofhisgood
charactertobolsterhiscredibilityinrelationtosomestatementshehadmadetohisdoctorsabouthisillnessesandmedicationetc.
o thiswascredibilityreasoning.
251
§ Thejudgeagreedtodothisbutinfactwhenthetimecametodoit–butwhenthetimecame,thejudgeaddressedthejuryonlyinrelationtotheimprobabilityreasoningandnotcredibilityreasoning
o Appeal§ Whenhewasconvicted,heappealedandpartoftheappealdealt
withthispointo HighCourt
§ HCheldtherewasnorulethatthejudgemustdirectthejurythatgoodcharacterevidencecanbeusedinbothways(improbabilityandcredibilityway).
§ However,thejudgehasadiscretionastowhethertogivedirectionstothejuryonevidenceofgoodcharacter,afterevaluatingitsprobativesignificanceinrelationtothosetwothings(improbabilityandcredibilityreasoning)
§ Thecharacterevidencewasnotofsuchprobativesignificanceinrelationtohiscredibilityastorequirethejudgetogiveadirectionthattheevidenceborefavourablyuponhiscredibility
• Hegavehischaracterevidencebuthewantedthejudgetousethatevidenceinaparticularway–foracredibilityreasoningandalsotheimprobabilityofhishavingcommittedthemurder
§ Noneofthecharacterevidencerelatedtohistruthfulnessandthustherewasnomiscarriageofjustice
- Despitethiscaseabove,thisissuecontinuedtoattractattentiono Issue
§ Whatdirectionsshouldagivejudgetothejuryinhowtoconsiderthischaracterevidence
o Example:theNSWCCAhasheld:§ Itisgenerallydesirableforajudgetoassistajurywhena
defendantraisesgoodcharacter- RvSoto-Sanzhez(2002)129ACrimR279
o TheNSWCCA§ Expressedtheviewthatitisdesirablethatajudgegivedirections
abouttheusetowhichcharacterevidenceshouldbeput.§ TheySHOULDadvisejuriesabout:
252
• JudgesshouldadvisejuriesthattheyshouldbaretheD’sgoodcharacterinmindwhendrawingconclusionstoD’sguilt.–probability
§ TheyMAYadvisejuriesabout:• TheycouldbaretheD’sgoodcharacters’evidenceinmind
whenconsideringthecredibilityofDo However,theyshouldremindjuriesspecificallythat
evenpeoplewithgoodcharacterdocommitcrimesforthefirsttimeandevidenceofgoodcharactercannotprevailoverevidenceofguilt
o Alwaysgiveprioritytothefactsastheyhavebeenproved
RebuttalofGoodCharacterEvidence
- Ifthedefendantadducesevidenceabouttheirgoodcharacter,theprosecutionoraco-defendantmayrespondwithevidencetonegatethatgoodcharacter(section101(2)(3))
- Theword‘adduced’o Section110(1)‘Ifthedefendant‘adduces’evidenceabouthisgood
character’- Howdoweknowifsomethinghasbeenadduced?
o Isthedefendantadducingevidenceofgoodcharactersimplybydenyingguilty?Orshouldwehavesomethingmore.
- TheQueenvBartle[2003]NSWCCA329o Facts:defendantwascrossexamined.Aquestionwasputtohim.When
thatquestionwasputtohimheansweredthisway.§ I’veneverbeeninvolvedinimportationsellingdrugs
o Theprosecutorwasgrantedleavetocrossexamineaboutapriorconvictionforimportingdrugs
o Thiswascrossexaminationastocharacter.o Onappeal,thiswasheldtobeanerrorbythetrialjudgetoallowcross
examinationabouthispriorconviction.o Isheraisinghisgoodcharacterwhenhesays‘I’veneverbeeninvolvedin
importationsellingdrugs
253
§ Theappealcourtsaid:thosewordsofthiscouldnotbeconstruedasadducingofgoodcharacter.
§ Thosewordscanonlybeseenasadirectdenialofthecharge.- SkafvTheQueen[2004]NSWCCA74
o Facts:TheDwascrossexamined.Hewasaskedspecifically–§ Q:Haveyouliedtopolice?§ A:Heanswered:‘I’veneverbeenchargedwithanything,onlya
drivingoffence’o Thiswasseenasanon-responsiveanswer.Theanswerwasnotdirectedto
thequestion.Hewasn'tansweringthequestiono Itwasheldtobeanassertionofgoodcharacter–thathewasraisinghis
goodcharacterandthereforetheprosecutionwasentitledtocross-examinehimabouthispastconvictions.
§ heopenedthedoor,eventhoughitwasanon-responsivestatementbyhim.
- Discretionstoexcludeo Iftheprosecutororaco-defendantleadevidencetorebutthedefendant’s
evidenceofgoodcharacter,§ Thetrialjudgehasthediscretiontoexcludeit
o Especiallyifthatevidenceisadisproportionateresponseo Example
§ Q:I’magoodbloke§ A:prosecutioncomeswithallgunsblazingtodestroyhim
completelyo Section112:Leaverequiredtocross-examineaboutcharacterofaccused
orco-accused§ Adefendantmustnotbecross-examinedaboutmattersarisingout
ofevidenceofakingreferredtointhisPartunlessthecourtgivesleave
o ReasonsnottogiveleaveinSection112§ 1.Thejudgemustexcludetheevidenceifitsprobativevalueis
outweighedbytheriskofunfairprejudice.§ 2.Thejudgemayexcludetheevidenceifthereisadangerthatthe
jurywouldusetheevidencerebuttinghisgoodcharacterinorder
254
toconcludethatthedefendanthasapropensityortendencytocommitthecrimeascharged
• Why?Becausethisistendencyevidenceandneedstobeadmittedthroughtendency
• Exceptions:unlessthatevidencebroughtinbytheprosecutionwouldbeadmissibleunderthetendencyrule.
Attackingthedefendant’scharacterwhentheyhaveopenedtheirgoodcharacterandaco-defendantattacksthem
- Section111:Evidenceaboutcharacterofco-accusedo 1)Thehearsayruleandtendencyruledonotapplytoevidenceofa
defendant’scharacterif:§ A)Theevidenceisevidenceofanopinionaboutthedefendant
adducedbyanotherdefendant,and§ B)Thepersonwhoseopinionitishasspecialisedknowledgebased
ontheperson’straining,studyorexperience,and§ C)Theopinioniswhollyorsubstantiallybasedonthatknowledge
o 2)Ifsuchevidencehasbeenadmitted,thehearsayrules,theopinionruleandthetendencyruledonotapplytoevidenceadducedtoprovethatthatevidenceshouldnotbeaccepted
- AnalysisofSection111o GeneralPrinciple
§ Theco-defendantmaynotleadevidenceofthedefendant’sbadcharactermerelytoattackthecredibilityofthedefendanttoshowthattheyareabadblokeinordertothengetthejurytoprefertheco-defendanttothedefendant
o Dispositions§ However,itispossibleundersection111–Foraco-defendantto
leadevidenceaboutanydispositionthedefendanthastoestablishthattheco-defendantwasunderthedefendant’scontrolordirection
255
o LoweryandKingvR[1974]AC85o Ifitisprobativeoftheco-defendant’sinnocence
§ Eveniftheevidenceofthatdispositionthatthedefendanthas(tocontroltheco-defendant)breachesthetendencyrule
• Youdon'thavetoprovesignificantprobativevalueinthiscontent
§ Co-defendantcanalsoleadopinionevidencetoshowthatthedefendanthasatendencytocontroltheco-defendant