Evidence Act Case Study: Admissibility, Privilege & Witnesses
VerifiedAdded on 2023/06/03
|10
|2612
|108
Case Study
AI Summary
This case study provides a detailed analysis of several legal scenarios under the Evidence Act. It examines issues related to self-incrimination, the right to silence, and the admissibility of various types of evidence, including photographs, illegally obtained evidence, and expert opinions. The study further explores witness competency, focusing on the capacity of children, the elderly, and spouses to provide evidence. Finally, it addresses the admissibility of evidence from deceased witnesses and challenges to written statements, providing a comprehensive overview of key legal principles and their practical application in criminal proceedings. Desklib provides all the necessary AI based study tools for students.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Law - Evidence Act
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Table of Contents
Answer 1....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 2....................................................................................................................................4
Answer 3....................................................................................................................................5
Answer 4....................................................................................................................................6
Answer 5....................................................................................................................................7
References..................................................................................................................................8
Answer 1....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 2....................................................................................................................................4
Answer 3....................................................................................................................................5
Answer 4....................................................................................................................................6
Answer 5....................................................................................................................................7
References..................................................................................................................................8
Answer 1
A) Under section 128 of Evidence Act 1995, Privilege with concern to self-discrimination is
where; witness objects in providing particular evidence on the basis that the evidence
might prove that witness might have committed a crime against or arising under
Australian law of a foreign country or is liable to a civil penalty (Lewis, 2005).
‘Privileges’ are statutorily recognized in the Evidence Act of NSW under client legal
privileges. Section 121 explains loss of client legal privilege as it does not prevent
adducing of evidence related to the question concerning the intentions of a client or the
party and does not prevent adducing of evidence of a communication or document
affecting a right of a person. Under section 122, there is no legal privilege to a client to
prevent the adducing of evidence if they have consented and have acted in a way
inconsistent with the other party objecting to the adducing of evidence ( NSW legislation
website, 1995). Similarly, section 123 do not provide client legal privilege to defendants,
Section 124 to joint clients, section 125 to misconduct, and section 126 is related to
communications and documents (ALRC, 2018). The competing considerations in
privileging the information of self-incrimination and disclosure of such information in
trial process requires a person to disclose information about freezing, search order or
other orders under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. However, it excludes order
of court under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 of the Commonwealth or the Confiscation
of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 or Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 of NSW (Judicial
Commission of New South Wales 2018, 2018).
B) The Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) allows a court to remove the right to silence or privilege
against self-incrimination from a witness when the witness objects to comply with the
order of disclosure based on the information that tend to prove that the person has
committed a crime against arising under Australian law or law of foreign country or is
A) Under section 128 of Evidence Act 1995, Privilege with concern to self-discrimination is
where; witness objects in providing particular evidence on the basis that the evidence
might prove that witness might have committed a crime against or arising under
Australian law of a foreign country or is liable to a civil penalty (Lewis, 2005).
‘Privileges’ are statutorily recognized in the Evidence Act of NSW under client legal
privileges. Section 121 explains loss of client legal privilege as it does not prevent
adducing of evidence related to the question concerning the intentions of a client or the
party and does not prevent adducing of evidence of a communication or document
affecting a right of a person. Under section 122, there is no legal privilege to a client to
prevent the adducing of evidence if they have consented and have acted in a way
inconsistent with the other party objecting to the adducing of evidence ( NSW legislation
website, 1995). Similarly, section 123 do not provide client legal privilege to defendants,
Section 124 to joint clients, section 125 to misconduct, and section 126 is related to
communications and documents (ALRC, 2018). The competing considerations in
privileging the information of self-incrimination and disclosure of such information in
trial process requires a person to disclose information about freezing, search order or
other orders under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. However, it excludes order
of court under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 of the Commonwealth or the Confiscation
of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 or Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 of NSW (Judicial
Commission of New South Wales 2018, 2018).
B) The Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) allows a court to remove the right to silence or privilege
against self-incrimination from a witness when the witness objects to comply with the
order of disclosure based on the information that tend to prove that the person has
committed a crime against arising under Australian law or law of foreign country or is
liable to civil penalty. Furthermore, there is no privilege against self-incrimination for
bodies corporate (Austlii.edu.au, 2018).
C) The ‘right to silence’ is considered as a right of the suspect not to disclose anything to the
police interrogation and is justified as a protection from self-incrimination and provides a
right to remain silent at pre-trial stage (Hocking & Manville, 2001).
D) The grounds upon which the admissibility of ‘opinion evidence’ of an expert witness can
be challenged if they are based on evidence of speculation, more like submissions, and
lack of specialized knowledge.
E) The term ‘improperly’ and ‘illegally’ in the section 138 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
means the evidence that has been obtained in contravention to the Australian law if the
person conducting the questioning, act or omit to act in a certain manner knowingly that
could substantially impair the ability of the person being questioned to respond rationally
(New South Wales Consolidated Acts, 2018).
Answer 2
A) As the accused Charlie is free from self-incrimination and has no intention to provide
any evidence at his trial, if the prosecution knows of evidence, it can be called during the
proceedings (Attorney-General's Department, 2018). The defence has the right to cross-
examine the witnesses of the prosecution in order to test the reliability and credibility of
the witness and there is no need to tell the defence in advance about the witness from the
prosecution side.
B) If defence decides to call the witness planned to be called by prosecution unknowingly,
it would rather be an advantageous situation for the defence. As Ms. Smith met Davy
and Bonnie in Queensland and heard that Davy was complaining about the hard life in
Australia in comparison to England, the defence can prove that they are not hiding
anything and the witness have heard Davy saying harder life in Australia, so he might
bodies corporate (Austlii.edu.au, 2018).
C) The ‘right to silence’ is considered as a right of the suspect not to disclose anything to the
police interrogation and is justified as a protection from self-incrimination and provides a
right to remain silent at pre-trial stage (Hocking & Manville, 2001).
D) The grounds upon which the admissibility of ‘opinion evidence’ of an expert witness can
be challenged if they are based on evidence of speculation, more like submissions, and
lack of specialized knowledge.
E) The term ‘improperly’ and ‘illegally’ in the section 138 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
means the evidence that has been obtained in contravention to the Australian law if the
person conducting the questioning, act or omit to act in a certain manner knowingly that
could substantially impair the ability of the person being questioned to respond rationally
(New South Wales Consolidated Acts, 2018).
Answer 2
A) As the accused Charlie is free from self-incrimination and has no intention to provide
any evidence at his trial, if the prosecution knows of evidence, it can be called during the
proceedings (Attorney-General's Department, 2018). The defence has the right to cross-
examine the witnesses of the prosecution in order to test the reliability and credibility of
the witness and there is no need to tell the defence in advance about the witness from the
prosecution side.
B) If defence decides to call the witness planned to be called by prosecution unknowingly,
it would rather be an advantageous situation for the defence. As Ms. Smith met Davy
and Bonnie in Queensland and heard that Davy was complaining about the hard life in
Australia in comparison to England, the defence can prove that they are not hiding
anything and the witness have heard Davy saying harder life in Australia, so he might
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
have gone back to England. It would prove that Charlie might have not killed Davy.
However, a witness cannot give evidences on both the sides i.e. prosecution as well as
defence.
C) If Charlie decides to provide evidence at his trial proceedings after changing his mind
from his previous intentions and the prosecution adduce evidence of past conviction of
Charlie for drug dealing, being a defendant, he is not competent to give evidence as a
witness for the prosecution under section 17 of the Evidence Act (AustLII, 2018).
However, Charlie had himself told two of his friends after his arrest in NSW that Davy
and Bonnie smuggled drugs to the Gold Coast and he dropped them off over there, he
does not have any evidence or proof against them. It would require proper investigation
by the police if the statement of Charlie was correct or not in order to adduce evidence of
past conviction of Charlie for drug dealing. Furthermore, if he was convicted for drug
dealing in past, it does not prove that he should be guilty this time as well. The
prosecution will require gathering more evidences against him in order to prove him a
murderer.
Answer 3
A) The photographs of Kim taken after the assault can be considered by the court while
ruling on the admissibility of the potential prosecution evidence as relevant evidence under
section 55 of the Act because it could reasonably affect the evaluation of probability of the
existence of a fact in issue in the trial proceedings (AustLII, 2018). The evidence cannot be
considered as irrelevant only because it is related to the credibility of a witness, admissibility
of other evidence and failure to give evidences.
B) After the arrest of Jasmine, police searched her house without a search warrant. They
found a bike helmet with Kim written on it, which was to be provided as an evidence by the
prosecution during the trial proceedings. It can be considered as a relevant evidence for the
However, a witness cannot give evidences on both the sides i.e. prosecution as well as
defence.
C) If Charlie decides to provide evidence at his trial proceedings after changing his mind
from his previous intentions and the prosecution adduce evidence of past conviction of
Charlie for drug dealing, being a defendant, he is not competent to give evidence as a
witness for the prosecution under section 17 of the Evidence Act (AustLII, 2018).
However, Charlie had himself told two of his friends after his arrest in NSW that Davy
and Bonnie smuggled drugs to the Gold Coast and he dropped them off over there, he
does not have any evidence or proof against them. It would require proper investigation
by the police if the statement of Charlie was correct or not in order to adduce evidence of
past conviction of Charlie for drug dealing. Furthermore, if he was convicted for drug
dealing in past, it does not prove that he should be guilty this time as well. The
prosecution will require gathering more evidences against him in order to prove him a
murderer.
Answer 3
A) The photographs of Kim taken after the assault can be considered by the court while
ruling on the admissibility of the potential prosecution evidence as relevant evidence under
section 55 of the Act because it could reasonably affect the evaluation of probability of the
existence of a fact in issue in the trial proceedings (AustLII, 2018). The evidence cannot be
considered as irrelevant only because it is related to the credibility of a witness, admissibility
of other evidence and failure to give evidences.
B) After the arrest of Jasmine, police searched her house without a search warrant. They
found a bike helmet with Kim written on it, which was to be provided as an evidence by the
prosecution during the trial proceedings. It can be considered as a relevant evidence for the
purpose of trial proceedings but it has been obtained by the police without search warrant so
it can be excluded by the court on the basis of section 138 because of obtaining the evidence
in an improper or illegal manner in contravention of the Australian law which allows for
searching a house only after obtaining search warrant (AustLII, 2018). The case is heinous
and Jasmine was arrested so the court might consider the bike helmet as an evidence.
C) The videos obtained from the house of Jasmine can be considered as visual identification
evidence as it was the evidence related to the identification based wholly or partly as
visualized by a person. Furthermore, the pornography videos can be used a relevant evidence
under section 55 of the Act because it could reasonably affect the evaluation of probability of
the existence of a fact in issue in the trial proceedings. It cannot be considered as irrelevant
only because it is related to the credibility of a witness, admissibility of other evidence and
failure to give evidences. Similar to the bike helmet, the video can also be excluded by the
court on the basis that it has been obtained by the police without search warrant i.e. illegally
and in an improper manner. The pornography videos obtained by the police indicates the bad
character of Jasmine and can be considered as a relevant evidence in the trial proceedings.
Answer 4
Zane had been sexually assaulted and murdered by Sally and Petra. The prosecution is
planning to call following witnesses to provide major evidences about the alleged offence;
A) Tran is a nine year old brother of Zane cannot be produced before the court as an evidence
because of lack of capacity under section 13 of the Act. He is not competent to give evidence
because of mental, intellectual and physical disability as he has not attained that age to
understand a question about the fact and to give an answer (AustLII, 2018). So, he is not
physically, mentally and intellectually incapable to be presented before the court as a witness
to provide evidences in the related matter. He is not mature enough to understand the incident
it can be excluded by the court on the basis of section 138 because of obtaining the evidence
in an improper or illegal manner in contravention of the Australian law which allows for
searching a house only after obtaining search warrant (AustLII, 2018). The case is heinous
and Jasmine was arrested so the court might consider the bike helmet as an evidence.
C) The videos obtained from the house of Jasmine can be considered as visual identification
evidence as it was the evidence related to the identification based wholly or partly as
visualized by a person. Furthermore, the pornography videos can be used a relevant evidence
under section 55 of the Act because it could reasonably affect the evaluation of probability of
the existence of a fact in issue in the trial proceedings. It cannot be considered as irrelevant
only because it is related to the credibility of a witness, admissibility of other evidence and
failure to give evidences. Similar to the bike helmet, the video can also be excluded by the
court on the basis that it has been obtained by the police without search warrant i.e. illegally
and in an improper manner. The pornography videos obtained by the police indicates the bad
character of Jasmine and can be considered as a relevant evidence in the trial proceedings.
Answer 4
Zane had been sexually assaulted and murdered by Sally and Petra. The prosecution is
planning to call following witnesses to provide major evidences about the alleged offence;
A) Tran is a nine year old brother of Zane cannot be produced before the court as an evidence
because of lack of capacity under section 13 of the Act. He is not competent to give evidence
because of mental, intellectual and physical disability as he has not attained that age to
understand a question about the fact and to give an answer (AustLII, 2018). So, he is not
physically, mentally and intellectually incapable to be presented before the court as a witness
to provide evidences in the related matter. He is not mature enough to understand the incident
and the consequences and is unable to understand the court procedures, that is why, he cannot
be considered capable enough to act as a witness in the court.
B) The 87 year old grandfather of Zane cannot be considered as a witness by the prosecution
because even he is not capable enough to provide evidence to the court. However, he
witnesses the alleged sexual assault and the murder, he suffered severe mental harm due to
such crimes in front of his eyes and is still suffering the trauma. It affected his ability to
recognize the members of his immediate family. So, he is not mentally fit to be presented as a
witness before the court. Under subsection 5 of Section 13, he is not competent to give
confirm evidence as he cannot remember the answer and he should tell the court if it occurs.
He is an aged person who is suffering from mental trauma so, he cannot be presented before
the court until he regain his physical and mental health to be understanding the matter.
C) Henri is the spouse of Sally who is willing to give witness in the trial proceedings and he
can be considered as competent and compellable witness in the Supreme Court of NSW trial.
He is physically, mentally and intellectually capable enough to be presented before the court
as a witness but there should be his conscience. Section 18 of the Act provide the right to
objection to the spouse of the defendant to be required to give evidence in the court (AustLII,
2018). So, the prosecution needs to call him on the basis that he agrees to give evidence about
the crime because he is the only capable witness of the crime and his evidence is extremely
important for the court.
Answer 5
A) The prosecution will be able to successfully adduce evidence of Phyllis that identifies Sid
as the burglar at his trial proceedings under subsection 7 of Section 13 of the Act. It states
that evidence that has been provided by a witness does not become inadmissible just because
the witness dies before finishing the process of providing evidences or become incompetent
to provide evidence in the trial proceedings. It will not be considered as the lack of capacity
be considered capable enough to act as a witness in the court.
B) The 87 year old grandfather of Zane cannot be considered as a witness by the prosecution
because even he is not capable enough to provide evidence to the court. However, he
witnesses the alleged sexual assault and the murder, he suffered severe mental harm due to
such crimes in front of his eyes and is still suffering the trauma. It affected his ability to
recognize the members of his immediate family. So, he is not mentally fit to be presented as a
witness before the court. Under subsection 5 of Section 13, he is not competent to give
confirm evidence as he cannot remember the answer and he should tell the court if it occurs.
He is an aged person who is suffering from mental trauma so, he cannot be presented before
the court until he regain his physical and mental health to be understanding the matter.
C) Henri is the spouse of Sally who is willing to give witness in the trial proceedings and he
can be considered as competent and compellable witness in the Supreme Court of NSW trial.
He is physically, mentally and intellectually capable enough to be presented before the court
as a witness but there should be his conscience. Section 18 of the Act provide the right to
objection to the spouse of the defendant to be required to give evidence in the court (AustLII,
2018). So, the prosecution needs to call him on the basis that he agrees to give evidence about
the crime because he is the only capable witness of the crime and his evidence is extremely
important for the court.
Answer 5
A) The prosecution will be able to successfully adduce evidence of Phyllis that identifies Sid
as the burglar at his trial proceedings under subsection 7 of Section 13 of the Act. It states
that evidence that has been provided by a witness does not become inadmissible just because
the witness dies before finishing the process of providing evidences or become incompetent
to provide evidence in the trial proceedings. It will not be considered as the lack of capacity
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
of the witness i.e. Phyllis because she was the only witness and she saw Sid climbing out of
the window carrying her mobile phone and purse (AustLII, 2018). She provided the evidence
and she would have identified the accused if she had not died since the committal hearing.
B) The defence may object to the tender of the written statement from Bernard under section
177 of the Act saying that he was not an expert to provide evidence but he was a former
police officer and was trained and had knowledge of investigating crime scene (NSW
Consolidated Acts, 2018). He took the sample of blood and sent it to the laboratory where, it
was confirmed that it was Sid who was on the window that night. It can be utilized as a clear
evidence as it was proved by the laboratory not by Sid.
C) If Bernard had died rather than resigned from the police, then also the objection of the
defence to the tender of his statement would not have been successful he was not to presented
before the court for evidence but the blood sample he took from the broken window was sent
by him to the laboratory for analysis revealed the truth. The prosecution was planning to
provide the written statement given by Bernard to the investigating police related to the blood
sample from the broken window and from where he collected the blood sample. The
statement can be utilized by the prosecution and objection by defence cannot succeed because
the sample analysis report proved that Sid was guilty and was there on the window on the day
in question. If however he had died, the written statement by him could be used as guiding
the investigation, had it not been presented before the court.
References
NSW legislation website. (1995). Evidence Act 1995 No 25. Retrieved from nsw.gov.au:
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/07d9f61a-c597-4aef-936d-8c62ab495893/1995-
25.pdf
the window carrying her mobile phone and purse (AustLII, 2018). She provided the evidence
and she would have identified the accused if she had not died since the committal hearing.
B) The defence may object to the tender of the written statement from Bernard under section
177 of the Act saying that he was not an expert to provide evidence but he was a former
police officer and was trained and had knowledge of investigating crime scene (NSW
Consolidated Acts, 2018). He took the sample of blood and sent it to the laboratory where, it
was confirmed that it was Sid who was on the window that night. It can be utilized as a clear
evidence as it was proved by the laboratory not by Sid.
C) If Bernard had died rather than resigned from the police, then also the objection of the
defence to the tender of his statement would not have been successful he was not to presented
before the court for evidence but the blood sample he took from the broken window was sent
by him to the laboratory for analysis revealed the truth. The prosecution was planning to
provide the written statement given by Bernard to the investigating police related to the blood
sample from the broken window and from where he collected the blood sample. The
statement can be utilized by the prosecution and objection by defence cannot succeed because
the sample analysis report proved that Sid was guilty and was there on the window on the day
in question. If however he had died, the written statement by him could be used as guiding
the investigation, had it not been presented before the court.
References
NSW legislation website. (1995). Evidence Act 1995 No 25. Retrieved from nsw.gov.au:
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/07d9f61a-c597-4aef-936d-8c62ab495893/1995-
25.pdf
ALRC. (2018). 12. Privilege Against Self-incrimination. Retrieved from alrc.gov.au:
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-right-6
Attorney-General's Department. (2018). Minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings.
Retrieved from ag.gov.au:
https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/
PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Minimumguaranteesincriminalproceedings.aspx
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 13 Competence: lack of capacity. Retrieved
from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s13.html
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 138 Exclusion of improperly or illegally
obtained evidence. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s138.html
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 18 Compellability of spouses and others in
criminal proceedings generally. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s18.html
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 55 Relevant evidence. Retrieved from
austlii.edu.au: http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/
ea199580/s55.html
AustLII. (2018). VIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 17 Competence and compellability:
defendants in criminal proceedings. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s17.html
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-right-6
Attorney-General's Department. (2018). Minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings.
Retrieved from ag.gov.au:
https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/
PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Minimumguaranteesincriminalproceedings.aspx
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 13 Competence: lack of capacity. Retrieved
from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s13.html
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 138 Exclusion of improperly or illegally
obtained evidence. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s138.html
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 18 Compellability of spouses and others in
criminal proceedings generally. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s18.html
AustLII. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 55 Relevant evidence. Retrieved from
austlii.edu.au: http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/
ea199580/s55.html
AustLII. (2018). VIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 17 Competence and compellability:
defendants in criminal proceedings. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s17.html
Austlii.edu.au. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 128. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s128.html
Hocking, D. B., & Manville, L. L. (2001). WHAT OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE: STILL
SUPPORTING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, OR A GROWING LEGAL
FICTION? Macquarie Law Journal, 1(1), 63-92.
Judicial Commission of New South Wales 2018. (2018). Privilege. Retrieved from
judcom.nsw.gov.au:
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/privilege.html
Lewis, M. (2005). Privileging Confidential Communications: the Uniform Evidence Act
Inquiry. Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal(87), 61 – 64.
New South Wales Consolidated Acts. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 138 Exclusion
of improperly or illegally obtained evidence. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s138.html
NSW Consolidated Acts. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 177 Certificates of expert
evidence. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s177.html
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s128.html
Hocking, D. B., & Manville, L. L. (2001). WHAT OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE: STILL
SUPPORTING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, OR A GROWING LEGAL
FICTION? Macquarie Law Journal, 1(1), 63-92.
Judicial Commission of New South Wales 2018. (2018). Privilege. Retrieved from
judcom.nsw.gov.au:
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/privilege.html
Lewis, M. (2005). Privileging Confidential Communications: the Uniform Evidence Act
Inquiry. Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal(87), 61 – 64.
New South Wales Consolidated Acts. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 138 Exclusion
of improperly or illegally obtained evidence. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s138.html
NSW Consolidated Acts. (2018). EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 177 Certificates of expert
evidence. Retrieved from austlii.edu.au:
http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
s177.html
1 out of 10
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.