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