BA v The Queen [2012] VSCA 285: adducing evidence of a witness's bad character

The UEA represents only a partial codification of the rules of evidence. Knowing whether the Evidence Act 2008 covers the field on a topic, or just introduces an alternative statutory pathway to the admission or exclusion of evidence, isn't easy. The stated intention of the ALRC or VLRC is helpful, but not the final word …

Continue reading BA v The Queen [2012] VSCA 285: adducing evidence of a witness's bad character

BA v The Queen [2012] VSCA 285: adducing evidence of a witness’s bad character

The UEA represents only a partial codification of the rules of evidence. Knowing whether the Evidence Act 2008 covers the field on a topic, or just introduces an alternative statutory pathway to the admission or exclusion of evidence, isn't easy. The stated intention of the ALRC or VLRC is helpful, but not the final word …

Continue reading BA v The Queen [2012] VSCA 285: adducing evidence of a witness’s bad character

RWS v The Queen [2012] VSCA 249: unauthorised questioners

Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 provides that367. Use of recorded evidence-in-chiefA witness may give evidence-in-chief (wholly or partly) in the form of an audio or audiovisual recording of the witness answering questions put to him or her by a person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.The regulations referred …

Continue reading RWS v The Queen [2012] VSCA 249: unauthorised questioners

The Queen v Getachew [2012] HCA 10: belief in consent not in issue

This case was handed down by the High Court yesterday. It's a sequel to the Victorian Court of Appeal's decision in Getachew v R [2011] VSCA 164 last year. The judgment will be studied carefully by lawyers involved in penetrative sex trials. It's a (rare) unanimous judgment by French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Keiffel and Bell …

Continue reading The Queen v Getachew [2012] HCA 10: belief in consent not in issue

SPA v The Queen [2011] VSCA 306: the possibility of concoction must be real

SPA v The Queen is an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeal's reasons tend to be brief in these judgments. The Court is anxious to say no more than is necessary than to decide the admissibility question before it, knowing that it will possibly see the matter back before it again after the trial ends.In …

Continue reading SPA v The Queen [2011] VSCA 306: the possibility of concoction must be real