I realised some time ago that, no matter what other rules to follow as an advocate, there is only one rule that should apply to everything an advocate says and does in court. I'm certain it's the only important rule for an advocate to obey, even though it's broken by all advocates some of the …
Tag: cross-examination
The recent history of Browne v Dunn
Edit: For a recent example of an appellate court taking a grim view of a practitioner's failure to uphold their obligations, see the civil case of Baulch v Lyndoch Warnambool [2010] VSCA 30.AJA Byrne didn't mince words [at 23]:The conduct of defence counsel in this instance is to be condemned. It was not an inadvertent …
Into the fray
Some time ago now we blogged about excessive judicial intervention during the running of a case. As we said at the time, it must sometimes be difficult to balance the desirability of properly understanding the evidence given (or simply to resist the urge to jump in and do something properly), as against the importance of …
Director of Public Prosecutions v Finnegan [2011] TASCCA 3: proving a prior inconsistent statement
In DPP v Finnegan [2011] TASCCA 3 the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal ruled the trial judge was wrong to refuse leave to the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness. Three men stood trial for assault. The Crown called a witness, Watkins, who had earlier pled guilty to his involvement. Watkins claimed no knowledge of …
Inconsistent results
The most recent quiz from the Judicial College is about unfavourable witnesses and the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements. It came out a couple of months ago, but the JCV has moved a few things around on its website so I looked over it again.The authors of the quiz give as broad a definition to …