PART 1: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Transcript of PART 1: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY
1
EVIDENCEINFAMILYLAWPROCEEDINGS
Evidence is the “bricks andmortar” of case building. Itmust have
twoessential characteristics tobe information that canbe received
by a Court: itmust be relevant and admissible. Evidence lawwas
formerlyacreatureofcommonlaw.Thatisnolongerthecase.Most
AustralianjurisdictionshaveenactedtheUniformEvidenceAct,which
abolished, ormodifiedmany of the common law rules. It is not a
complete code. Some rules of evidence, both procedural and
substantive(liketheevidentialburdenofproof)arecoveredbyother
legislationandbycommonlaw.
TheEvidenceAct(Cth)waspassedandcameintooperationin1995.
Alllawyerspractisinginthefamilylawjurisdictionshouldbefamiliar
with theEvidenceAct,aswell as theFamilyLawAct(Cth)1975, the
FamilyLawRules2004andFamilyLawRegulations1984.
Thispaperisdividedintothreeparts:
1. DocumentaryEvidence-theuseoftechnology;
2. Evidencegathering–buildingyourcase;and
3. Preparingforandrunningatrial–whentherulesofevidence
comeintosharpfocus.
PART1:DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCEINTHE21STCENTURY
"Therewas,ofcourse,nowayofknowingwhetheryouwerebeingwatchedatanygivenmoment...itwasevenconceivablethat[theThoughtPolice]watchedeverybodyallthetime...Theycouldpluginyourwirewhenevertheywantedto.Youhadtolive...intheassumptionthat...everymovementwasscrutinized."- GeorgeOrwell1947,in1984
2
Text messages, e-mails, smart phones and social media - this
technology now permeates our lives. Consequently, it has created
newformsofdocumentaryevidencethatisbeingusedintheCourts.
It is important to remember that electronic communications are
essentially documents and must be proved (assuming they are
admissible)iftheyaretoberelieduponasgoodevidence.
So,whatisa“document”andhowdoyouproveitinCourt?
TheDictionary intheEvidenceActdefines“document”verybroadly,
asfollows:
Documentmeansanyrecordofinformation,andincludes-
(a) anythingonwhichthereiswriting;or
(b) anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols or
perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to
interpretthem;or
(c) anything from which sounds, images or writings can be
reproducedwithorwithouttheaidofanythingelse;or
(d) amap,plan,drawingorphotograph.
This means mobile phones, computers, discs, memory cards, USB
sticks, i-phones, i-pads,recordingsandimagescanallbedocuments
forthepurposesofevidence,providedtheycontaininformationthat
someone can interpret. That information must be relevant to the
proceedingtobeadmissibleevidence.
Atcommonlaw,the“bestevidencerule”meantthatthecontentsofa
document would usually be proved by tendering the original
3
document. Copies of documents and oral evidence about the
contents of documents were generally inadmissible (subject to
exceptions, for example, where the original document was not
availableanditsabsencecouldbeexplained).Thecommonlawrule
nolongerapplies.Section48oftheEvidenceActsetsouthowaparty
may adduce evidence of the contents of a document. I have not
extractedthesection,whichisquitelengthy. Bywayofsummary,a
partycantenderthedocumentsoughttobereliedupon,oruseone
ofthefollowingmethods:
(a) adduceevidenceofanadmissionmadebyanotherparty
to theproceedingas to thecontentsof thedocument in
question (for example, put it to them as a prior
inconsistent statement in cross examination, or in a
NoticetoAdmit);
(b) tenderacopyproducedbyaphotocopierorscanner;
(c) tenderatranscript(forexample,ofarecording);
(d) tender a document that is produced by use of a device
usedtoretrieve,produceorcollateinformationfromthe
article/document (for example, a DVD or USB stick
containinginformationdownloadedfromacomputer);
(e) tenderadocumentthatisasummaryoforextractfrom
the document in question, which forms part of the
recordsofabusiness(forexample,acopyofasummary
ofthelastsetoffinancialaccountsofabusiness);
(f) if the document is a public document, tender a copy
producedfromanofficialgovernmentsource.
4
Adocumentcanbeprovedinoneofthewayssetoutabove,evenif
the original document is available. If the original document is
unavailable, then under section 48(4) of the Evidence Act the
documentcanbeprovedbywayofacopy,extract, summary,orby
oralevidence.
Remember to have some forethought about the practicalities of
presentingdocumentaryevidenceinCourt.Ifyouintendtorelyona
recordingorevidencedownloaded fromacomputer, liaisewith the
Court before the hearing to ensure that equipment is available in
Courttoplayitonandthattheequipmentiscompatiblewithdevice
youintendtouse.
Informationon computersandotherdevices canbe subpoenaedor
bethesubjectofdiscoveryandNoticestoProduce inthesameway
as other documents that are relevant to the proceeding. An Order
maybesoughtbyfilinganApplicationinaCaseforapartytomake
its computer available for inspection, if necessary, however issues
aboutlegalprivilegeandrelevancemayariseifapartywants“carte
blanche”.
It isnowcommonfordocuments tobeproducedunderasubpoena
onadiscorUSBstickandforsolicitorstoattendthesubpoenaroom
withalaptop,ratherthanaphotocopycard.Computerfilesmayalso
beproducedandmadeavailable for inspectionelectronically. Care
mustbetakeninvettingwhatisincluded,astherehavebeencasesin
whichthis formofdiscoveryhasraisedissuesaboutwaiverof legal
privilege: see forexampleGTCorporationPtyLtdvAmareSafetyPty
5
Ltd[2007]VSC123.Inthatcase,enormouselectronicdiscoverywas
provided,withnoindexthatidentifiedwhatthedocumentswereand
fromwhosecomputertheyhadcome. Amongstthethousandsofe-
mails in the discovery were some sensitive solicitor-client
communications. The case was about whether there had been an
impliedwaiverofprivilegeandwhethercounselwhohadinspected
someofthedocumentsshouldberestrainedfromactinginthecase.
Theanswerstothosequestionswereno,therehadbeennoimplied
waiver in the circumstances and yes, counsel was restrained from
actinganyfurtherinthecase.
Ifdocumentsarevoluminousandcomplex,section50oftheEvidence
Actprovidesthatevidenceofthedocumentsmaybeadducedbyway
ofasummary,providedtheotherpartyisservedwithacopy,given
thenameandaddressofthepersonwhopreparedthesummaryand
hasareasonableopportunitytoinspectthedocuments.Thismaybe
ausefulprovision incomplex financialcases in theFamilyCourt, in
whichevidencemayneedtobeadducedofthefinancialrecordsofa
groupof companies, or the gambling records of spouse committing
wasteoveranumberofyears.
DoyouhavetoauthenticatedocumentsinCourt?
The document sought to be adduced as evidence must be
authenticated. Thismeansthat theCourtmustbesatisfiedthat the
document iswhat it is purported to be. Sections 57 and 58 of the
EvidenceActrelaxedthecommonlawrequirementsfordocumentsto
beauthenticatedbeforetheycouldberelevant. Undersection57,a
6
courtcanmakeafindingthatunauthenticateddocumentaryevidence
isrelevant,ifitisreasonablyopentothecourttomakethatfinding,
orsubjecttofurtherevidencebeingadmittedlaterintheproceeding
thatwillmakeitreasonablyopentotheCourttomakeafindingthat
the evidence is relevant. Further, under section 58, the Courtmay
examineadocumentanddrawfromitanyreasonableinferenceasto
itsauthenticityoridentity.Inotherwords,theCourtcanacceptthe
authenticityofadocumentatfacevalue.
However, if the authenticity of a document is in question and the
partyseekingtorelyonitdoesnotbringevidenceaboutthemaking
ofthedocumentwhentheycoulddoso,thentheCourtmayfinditis
notrelevant,orexcludetheevidenceusing thediscretionarypower
undersection135oftheEvidenceActtoexcludeevidencethatmight
beunfairlyprejudicial,misleadingorconfusing,orcauseorresultin
unduewasteoftime.
Computer recordsaredealtwith in section147of theEvidenceAct.
This section basically says that if a document is produced by a
process, machine or other device in the course of a business, then
evidenceisnotrequiredabouttheworkingaccuracyofthe“device”
(unlessthereisevidencetodisplacethepresumptionofauthenticity
raised by the section). Section 161 contains a similar provision in
relation to electronic communications. If a document purports to
containarecordofanelectroniccommunication,thenitispresumed
thatthecommunicationwasmade,sentandreceivedinthemanner
appearingonthedocument.
7
Whataboutthehearsayrule?
Manydocumentsarehearsay.Thatis,theyarerepresentationsmade
byapersonoutofcourt. Section59of theEvidenceActdefines the
hearsayruleasfollows:
Evidence of a previous representationmade by a person is not
admissibletoprovetheexistenceofafactthatitcanreasonably
be supposed that the person intended to assert by the
representation.
Therearevariousexceptionstothehearsayrule.Themostrelevant
oneinthiscontextistheexceptionforbusinessrecordsinsection69
oftheEvidenceAct,whichisbasedontheirreliabilityandnecessity.
“Business” is defined widely. To come within the exception, the
documentmust satisfy one of two conditions. Firstly, the business
record was made by a person who had, or might reasonably be
supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the fact asserted.
Secondly, and in the alternative, it was made on the basis of
informationdirectlyorindirectlysuppliedbysuchaperson.
There is also an exception to the hearsay rule in section 71 of the
EvidenceActaboutrecordsofelectroniccommunications,insofaras
therepresentationisabouttheidentityofthesender,thedate,time
and destination of the communication. For example, if an e-mail
print-outstatesthatitwassentbyHusbandtoWifeat10.40pmon1
March2013,thenthatisadmissibleevidenceofthesendingofthee-
mailatthattime.
8
Itisalsoimportanttonotethatsection60oftheEvidenceActmakes
a significant change to the common law hearsay rule. Once a
documentisadmittedintoevidenceforanon-hearsaypurpose,itcan
alsobeusedforahearsaypurpose.Thismeansthatifanoutofcourt
representationisadmissibleasevidencethatastatementwasmade,
then it is also admissible as evidence of the fact asserted in the
statement. So, for example, if adownload fromaFacebookpage is
admissible as evidence that personA communicateswith personB
throughsocialmedia,thenthefactsassertedintheFacebookpostare
alsoadmissibleevidence.
Whatabouttelephonecalls&recordings?
Inrelationtotelephonecalls,youshouldbeawareofsection7ofthe
Telecommunications(InterceptionandAccess)Act(Cth) 1979,which
prohibits the interception and recording of telephone calls. As a
general rule, telephone calls may not be recorded whilst being
transmitted unless the person recording the call informs the
speakers that they are being recorded. A party can record a
telephone conversation inwhich he or she is a participantwithout
offendingthissection,asitistheinterceptionofthecallwithoutthe
participants’ knowledge, rather than the recording in itself that
createstheoffence.
Arguably,theCourtmayexerciseitsdiscretionundersection138of
theEvidenceActtoadmitevidenceof illegally interceptedtelephone
calls,iftheprobativevalueishigh,andgrantacertificateagainstself-
incrimination under section 128 of theEvidenceActto thewitness
9
givingsuchevidence. Thelawinthisareaisnotcompletelysettled,
as there is a tension between section 138 of the EvidenceActand
section 63 of the Telecommunications Act, which provides a
mandatoryprohibitiononusingunlawfully intercepted information
asevidenceinaproceeding.
As a general rule, under State legislation, such as the Surveillance
DevicesAct 1999 (Vic), it is illegal to use a listeningor surveillance
devicetorecordaprivateconversationtowhichthepersonusingthe
device is not apartywithout the express or implied consent of the
partiestotheconversation.Itislegaltomakearecordinginapublic
place, where you would expect other people to hear you, and to
recordconversationsinwhichyouareaparticipant.Inpractice,this
meansthataparentcan legallymakeanaudioandvisualrecording
(forexample,onamobilephone)ofhisorherdirectinteractionwith
the other parent at a contact changeoverwithout the other parent
knowing and consenting. However, it also means that a parent
cannot lawfully record a child’s telephone conversation with the
otherparentwithoutthemknowing(forexample,byholdingatape
recorderuptothehand-pieceofanextensionphone).
PART2:EVIDENCEGATHERING–BUILDINGYOURCASE
Financialdisclosure
Thepartieshaveanobligationtomakefullandfrankdisclosureofall
documents in their possession or control that are relevant to the
proceeding and that are not subject to legal privilege. Privileged
10
documentsarethosedocumentspreparedforthedominantpurpose
ofcurrentoranticipatedlegalproceedings.
Note,section55theEvidenceActdefinesrelevantevidenceasbeing
evidencethat, if itwereaccepted,couldrationallyaffect(directlyor
indirectly)theassessmentoftheprobabilityoftheexistenceofafact
inissueintheproceeding.
The Family Law Rules and Federal Circuit Court Rules set out the
documents thatmust be disclosed in financial cases as aminimum
requirement, to the extent that they are relevant. In addition to a
general obligation of financial disclosure, there are specific
provisionsrequiringproductionof:
• last3taxreturnsandassessments
• superannuationinformationforms
• last financial statements for trusts, companies and
partnerships
• copiesoftrustdeedsandpartnershipagreements
• BASforthepast12months
• Marketappraisalsofassets
• Proofofincome
• Disclosureofdisposalofassetsoverthepast12months
SeeFamilyLawRules12.02,12.05and13.04.
See Federal Circuit Court Rules 24.03, 24.04 (financial cases) and
24.05(maintenancecases, inwhich12monthsbankstatementsare
alsorequired).
11
Obtainingevidencefromthirdparties
ThirdpartiescanbejoinedorinterveneinproceedingsifOrdersare
sought thataffect their rights, forexample, a trustee inbankruptcy.
Partiesmay also need to join a third party, if that person or entity
must be bound by the Orders made by the Court for them to be
effective, for example, where a company or trustee is required to
transferanassettoaspouseparty.
Subpoenaemaybeissuedandservedonthirdpartiesatanystageof
theproceedingintheFederalCircuitCourt,uptoamaximumoffive
(seeFederalCircuitCourtRules 15A.01 to15A.11). Subpoenaemay
beissuedintheFamilyCourtwithoutpermissionforthepurposesof
an interim or procedural hearing, but the leave of the Court is
requiredtoissuesubpoenaefortrial(seeFamilyLawRules15.17to
15.21). Special rules apply to self-represented litigants and
subpoenaingdocumentsfromothercourts.
A subpoena to give evidence, or to produce documents and give
evidence, will not be issued if a subpoena to produce documents
would be sufficient. A subpoena may be objected to if it is
oppressive,vexatious,orafishingexpedition.
His Honour Justice Cronin reviewed the law on subpoenae in the
recent decision of Cahill&Cahill(no.2)[2013] FamCA 453. In that
case,thewifesoughtproductionbyafirmofsolicitorsofdocuments
relatingto thedispositionandpotentialsaleofassetsbyagroupof
family owned entities. She also sought the production of invoices
12
rendered by the firm onmatters related to a variety of companies,
trustsandadeceasedestate.Thewifehadmadeuntestedallegations
inthecasethatthehusband’sfamilyhadanarrangementabouthow
trustassetswouldbedivided,whichtheHusbanddenied.
The husband’s mother objected to the subpoenae in her personal
capacity, her capacity as a director of the group of companies,
executor of her late husband’s estate and the appointor of some
trusts.Shewasfoundtohavea“sufficientinterest”inthesubpoena
tobeheard.
The husband’smother objected to the subpoenae on the basis that
theywereoppressive, fishing andnot relevant, andharassing. The
first ground was difficult to argue because the documents had
alreadybeenprovided,however,HisHonourJusticeCroninsaid:
…oppression is not confined simply to the size of the task but
rathertowhetherthecourtconsidersthisexerciseimposedona
non-party is an unreasonable invasion of their privacy having
regardtothetaskoftheCourttodojusticetothepartiesinthe
substantiveproceedings.
The objector argued that the subpoenae were harassing because a
subpoenahadalreadybeenissuedandlaterwithdrawnbythewife,
andthehusbandarguedthathisinterestintheobjector’sassetsand
thoseofthe“family”wasspeculativeatbest.TheJudgerejectedthis
argumentandsaidtherelevanceofdocumentsinthiscontextisnot
limited to documents admissible in themselves in proof of an issue
13
raised in the case. It is sufficient that they could “possibly throw
light”ontheissuesinthesubstantiveproceedings,oritappearstobe
“on the cards” that they will do so. The party seeking to inspect
subpoenaed documents need only show a legitimate forensic
purposeintheinspection.
ConverselyintheCahillcase,JusticeCroninhadpreviouslysetaside
subpoenae issued by the husband against the wife’s family on the
basisthattheyweretoowide-rangingincircumstanceswhereinter-
partydiscoveryhadnotbeenundertaken.Itwasnotacaseof“what
is good for the goose is good for the gander”, as the wife had
exhaustedall otheravenuesofobtaining thedocuments she sought
to support her allegations about the husband’s true financial
resources. The Husband, when he issued his subpoenae, had not
exhaustedallotheravenues.
Expertevidence
Consideratanearlystageofthecasewhetherornotyouneedexpert
evidence. If so, shoulda singleexpertbe jointly appointed? If you
haveobtainedasingleexpertreport,doyouneedashadowexpertto
challengetheevidenceofthesingleexpert,ortoadviseyouonhow
to attack the single expert’s report? The rules about experts are
clear,bothintermsofprocedureundertheFamilyLawRulesandin
termsofwhomaybecalledasanexpert.
Expert evidence is admissible opinion evidence. As a general rule,
evidence of an opinion is inadmissible under section 76 of the
14
EvidenceAct.Tobeadmissible,theopinionofanexpertmustsatisfy
threecriteria,setoutinsection79oftheEvidenceAct,being:
1. Thepersonmusthavespecializedknowledge;
2. The specialized knowledge must be based on the person’s
training,studyorexperience;and
3. The opinionmust be wholly or substantially based on their
specialisedknowledge.
Further, the common law “basis rule” still applies to expert
evidence, although it is not expressly set out in section 79. This
means that the factsunderpinning theevidencemustbedisclosed.
Theexpertmustsetoutthefactsobservedandproved,uponwhich
theopinionisbased,oridentifyanyfactsthathavebeenassumedor
acceptedinformulatingtheopinion.
The seminal decision on expert evidence isMakita(Australia)Pty
LtdvSprowles[2001|NSWCA305,inwhichHeydonJAsummarized
theprinciplesapplicabletoexpertevidence,whichwerecodifiedin
theEvidenceAct. He said, “..theexpert’sevidencemustexplainhow
the field of ‘specialised knowledge’ inwhich thewitness is expert by
reasonof ‘training, studyorexperience’,andonwhichtheopinion is
‘wholly or substantially based’, applies to the facts assumed or
observed so as to produce the opinion propounded. If all of these
mattersarenotmadeexplicit,itisnotpossibletobesurewhetherthe
opinion is based wholly or substantially on the expert’s specialized
knowledge.”
15
The foundation of an expert’s opinion on “facts” that are hearsay
and the subject of dispute between the parties can provide fertile
groundsforcross-examination.Forexample,apsychologistcannot
give evidence about who abused a person and when the abuse
occurred,asthatisoutsidetheareaofthepsychologist’sexpertise.
Further, a psychologist cannot give an opinion that awitness is a
“good parent”, based on what a witness has told them in clinical
sessions.Thisisamatterforthecourt.
In financialcases,bewaryofaccountantswhoexceedthescopeof
theirexpertiseinprovidingreportsandgivingexpertevidence.For
example,anaccountantmaynotbeabletogiveadmissibleevidence
about what would be expected of a diligent company director,
unlesshe/shehasexperienceasadirectorofanumberofpublicand
privatecompanies. Further,doestheaccountanthavetheindustry
experiencetoprovidevaluationsofcompanyassets,suchaslicences
orfranchises,iftheseareinissue?
TheEvidenceActabolished two common law rules,which in effect
expandedthescopeofexpertevidence.Underthecommonlaw,an
expert could not give an opinion about the ultimate issue in the
proceeding,oramatterofcommonknowledge. Whilst theserules
have been abolished, Courtsmay use their discretion to give such
evidence relatively littleweight, or to exclude itunder thegeneral
discretionundersection135oftheEvidenceActtoexcludeunfairly
prejudicial evidence. Be wary of the expert who becomes a
“barraker”foronepartyandlosesobjectivity.
16
PART3:EVIDENCEATTRIAL
Rule15.09oftheFamilyLawRulesprescribestheformatofAffidavits.
TheFamilyCourtandtheFederalCircuitCourtareessentiallyCourts
of trial by Affidavit. The Judge will have read the parties’ trial
Affidavitsbeforecomingontothebenchtohearthecaseandinmany
instanceswillhave formedapreliminaryviewof thematteron the
basis ofwhat he or she has read. Therefore, it is important to get
themright,frombothafactualandtacticalpointofview.
I have set out below the requirements and some points of “best
practice” for drafting a trial Affidavit, which are basic but often
transgressed:
1. Itshouldthereforecontainallof the facts that thewitness
willattesttointhewitnessbox.Itistheparty’sevidencein
chiefinwriting.
2. Those factsmust be set out in numbered paragraphs and
eachparagraphshouldonlydealwithonesubject.
3. The Affidavit should be chronological, unless there is a
particular reason for drafting the Affidavit by topic or
themeinstead.
4. It is sworn evidence. An Affidavit should not contain
hearsay,conclusions,speculation,opinionsthatthewitness
isnotqualifiedtogive,irrelevantinformationorarguments.
5. Avoidusingabsolutesandadjectives,like“always”,“never”
and “very”. They can put the witness in a difficult spot
when under cross-examination. Adjectives can often
detractfromthefacts,whichdonotneedtobeembellished.
17
6. Do not put conversations in inverted commas, unless the
witness is 100%sureof thewordsused. Avoidusing the
phrase”….saidwords to theeffectof.” It is unnecessary to
use itandstrictly speaking, it isnotevidenceofwhatwas
saidinsubstance,buttheeffectofitonthelistener.
7. IfrespondingtoanAffidavitfromanotherparty,youwillbe
assumedtoadmitthecontents,unlessyouspecificallydeny
them. It is not necessary to specifically admit or provide
“nocomment”inrelationtonon-contentiousparagraphs.
8. It is not necessary in a trial Affidavit to recite the
proceduralhistoryof thecase. TheCourt filesets thisout
andtotheextentthatitisrelevanttothedeterminationof
thematter,ortocosts,itcanbedealtwithinsubmissions.
9. The witness’ evidence should be contained in the one
Affidavit.DonotseektorelyonearlierAffidavitsaswell,or
incorporate them by reference. On the other hand,when
draftinganAffidavitofevidenceinchief,ensurethatyoure-
read and cross-reference previousAffidavits to check that
thewitnessisbeingconsistent.Donotleavethemopento
being cross-examined about making a prior inconsistent
statement.
10. All annexure cover pages and annexures should be
paginated,followingonfromthelastnumberedpageofthe
Affidavit.
11. Iftheannexuresareextensive,considerprovidingtheCourt
with a separate exhibit book, rather than annexures (and
numbereverypageconsecutivelyforeaseofaccessduring
thetrial).
18
12. OnlyannexrelevantpagesofdocumentstoanAffidavitthat
relateto issues indispute. Courtsdonotappreciatebulky
Affidavits,inwhichtheannexuresexceedthemainbodyof
theevidence.
Whilst a trial Affidavit contains factual evidence, how you organize
thefactsinatrialAffidavit,thelevelofdetailyouincludeinrelation
to different aspects of the case and the matters you downplay or
excludearealltacticaldecisions.Whendrafting,haveinthebackof
yourmindwhattheissuesinthecaseare.Inyourfinalsubmissions,
whatdoyouwant to impressupon theCourt? Youneed toensure
thattheevidenceisinthetrialAffidavitstosupportyourarguments
at the end of the case and that the most important evidence is
prominent.
If you are served with Affidavits that contain conclusions,
speculation, argument, unqualified opinions, irrelevant material or
inadmissiblehearsay,thenpreparewrittenobjections.Rule15.13of
theFamilyLawRulesandRule15.29oftheFederalCircuitCourtRules
gives the Court the power to strike out affidavit material that is
inadmissibleand/or irrelevant.TheObjections shouldbe servedon
theothersidebeforethetrial,sothatcounselcanagreetostrikeout
certain paragraphs that clearly offend the rules of evidence. The
balanceoftheobjectionscanthenbearguedbeforetheJudgeatthe
startofthetrial,iftheygotomattersthatarecontentious.Thiscan
take up valuable time at the start of the trial, but is can have
advantages,bothstrategicand inseekinganorder forcosts thrown
away.
19
Bewaryofsection69ZToftheFamilyLawAct,whichgivesthecourt
adiscretiontoallowcertainevidence inparentingcasesthatwould
not be admissible under the Evidence Act, for example, hearsay
evidence.
ItiscommontoseestatementsinAffidavitslikethefollowing,which
areinadmissible,unlesstheyaresupportedbyevidence,andshould
belistedinobjectionsservedontheotherparties:
“Ihaveacloseandlovingrelationshipwiththechildren”(conclusion–
howisthismanifested?)
“The Husband was violent and abusive towards me.” (conclusion –
what did he do? Include particulars to what was said and done to
whomandwhen)
“ImadesignificantlygreatercontributionsthantheWife.”(conclusion
andargumentative–how,what,when?)
“TheWifehastriedtoalienatemefromthechildren.”(conclusionand
speculation–thebehaviourmustbeparticularized. Awitnesscannot
knowwhat someone else is thinking or intends, only the effect of the
behaviourobservedbythewitness)
“Thevalueofthepropertyis likelytoincreasesubstantially.”(opinion
andspeculation–isthewitnessqualifiedtogiveexpertevidenceabout
this?)
20
“If I am not permitted to relocate, my mental health will suffer.”
(speculationandopinion,ratherthanfacts)
“FamilymembershavetoldmethattheHusbandhasdenigratedmeto
our family and friends.” (inadmissible hearsay and unsupported
conclusionaboutwhatwassaid).
“Iamconcerned that theHusbandmayattempt todisposeofassets.”
(this is irrelevant– Judgeswill tellyouthattheyarenot interested in
yourclient’s“concerns”–whatistheevidencethatthewitnesshasseen
orheardthatposesariskofthedisposalofassets?).
ConsiderwhatwillmakelifeeasyfortheJudgewhenheorshehears
thecaseandthemostefficientmeansofgettingevidencebeforethe
Court.Achronologyandabalancesheetshouldbeprepared,agreed
and handed up to the Judge as aidesmemoire, where appropriate.
Summariesandspreadsheets,forexample,ofvaluationsorexpenses
mayalsobeusefulaidememoiresfortheJudgeinfinancialcasesand
savetime,wheretheotherpartiesdonottakeissuewiththecontent.
Finally, beware the spectre of fraud. If your client has a history of
claimingCentrelinkbenefits,makesureyouknowthehistoryofthem
before your client is subjected to cross-examination. This is more
important than ever, when the dates of commencement and
termination of de facto relationships are increasingly in issue in
proceedings.Forexample,ifapartygivesevidencethatshewasina
defactorelationshipatagivendate,hercredibilityisdamagedifsole
parentbenefitswerebeingclaimedatthesametime.Alternatively,if
21
her evidence about the relationship is accepted, then she was
committing an offence under the Social Security Act and may be
exposedtoprosecution.
If therearetaxskeletonsinthecloset, findoutaboutthembeforea
singleexpertaccountant/valuerreporthighlightsthemforthecourt
andthepartiesarereferredbytheJudgeforprosecution. Thismay
mean liaison with the client’s accountants and ensuring that tax
recordsareuptodatebeforeproceeding.
Under section128of theEvidenceAct,awitnessmay relyupon the
privilege against self-incrimination and apply for a certificate from
thecourt. However,oncetheevidencespillsout, it istoolate. This
needstobedonebeforethehorsehasbolted.
JEANETTESWANN
BARRISTER