This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Litigation 2 - Evidence Law Notes

Discretionary And Mandatory Exclusions Notes

Updated Discretionary And Mandatory Exclusions Notes

Litigation 2 - Evidence Law Notes

Litigation 2 - Evidence Law

Approximately 259 pages

These are comprehensive yet succinct notes. They set out the relevant legal principles, and material facts from a range of cases in order to demonstrate how those legal principles have been applied.

At the beginning of each document on each topic, there is a table of contents (hyperlinked so you can navigate easily through the document), and also an 'exam checklist', which you can use during revisions or exams to remind yourself of the key issues you have to address. I also use tables where p...

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Litigation 2 - Evidence Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

3 Discretionary and Mandatory Exclusions: ss 135-137

Readings

Introduction ss 135-137 16.1 – 16.5; SM ch 16 Evans 16.6-8 16.14-16.16 [120-130] recent cases SM 16.5A, 16.5B, 16.14A

Table of Contents

3 Discretionary and Mandatory Exclusions: ss 135-137 1

Checklist: 1

Discretionary exclusion: s 135? – applies to both civil + criminal 2

S 135(a) unfair prejudice 2

S 135(b) misleading or confusing 3

S 135(c) ‘undue waste of time’: Dyldam; Jacara 3

Mandatory exclusion: s 137 – only applies to criminal 4

Limiting the use of the evidence: s 136? 6

Note other exclusions (learnt in Lit 1): 7

Notes on fair trial - factors that could weigh in favour of excluding 8

Appendix 10

Checklist:

Prelim: consider relevance (S56) and if any other exclusions.

This evidence could be excluded under s 135 or 137, or its use could be limited under s 136.

  • Unfair prejudice has the same meaning in each of these sections: R v BD.

Could the evidence be excluded under s 135?

  • Assess its probative value. Is this substantially outweighed by danger that evidence might be:

  • (a) unfairly prejudicial to party?

  • (b) misleading/confusing?

  • (c) cause or result in an undue waste of time?

  • What directions to give? Or its use limited by s 136?

Should the evidence be excluded under s 137, mandatorily?

  • The probative value, as discussed above, is____.

  • The danger of unfair prejudice to the D is_____.

  • Directions that could be given to reduce this are _____., or use limited by s136?

  • Overall, it seems ____.

Should use be limited under s 136:

(a) unfairly prejudicial or (b) misleading/confusing.?

Discretionary exclusion: s 135? – applies to both civil + criminal

Intro to s 135

Rule: A trial judge may exclude evidence that is sufficiently probative to satisfy s 55 but is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might:

  1. be unfairly prejudicial to a party: s 135(a)

  2. be misleading or confusing: s 135(b)

  3. cause or result in undue waste of time: s 135(c)

  • Burden: Party who wants discretion exercised bears burden of proof: see notes on proof
Process for all s 135 issues

The weighing process: Admitting the evidence will serve the interests of justice only if the judge concludes that the probative force of the evidence compared to the degree of risk of an unfair trial is such that fair minded people would think that the public interest in adducing all relevant evidence of guilt must have priority over the risk of an unfair trial: Pfennig

Three step process (James Hardie; Shamouil)

  1. First - Assess the probative value of the evidence, the ‘extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of the fact in issue’: James Hardie

    1. Failure to assess probative value is a fundamental legal error: ASIC v Rich; James Hardie

    2. Issues of credibility and reliability should not be taken into account when determining the probative value of evidence under ss 135 and 137 except where ‘they are such that it is possible for the court to determine that it would not be open to the jury to conclude that the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of the fact in issue’: Shamouil; Mundine (not what the tribunal of fact is likely to conclude.) Evidence has probative value if it is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty: Shamouil

  2. Second – determine whether the probative value is outweighed by one or more of the identified dangers: James Hardie

    1. (a)? see below – unfair prejudice means real risk that jury will misuse evidence in unfair way: Festa; R v BD; Papakosmas;

    2. (b)? misleading/confusing see below eg, tendency: Toki

    3. (c)? waste of time see below Dyldam

  3. Third – decide whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by one or more of the dangers in s 135: James Hardie .

    1. Have regard to whether the problems of admitting the evidence can be lessened by actions other than exclusion for example by limiting the use of the evidence by jury directions: R v Em

S 135(a) unfair prejudice

S135(a) ‘unfair prejudice’: Just because the evidence makes it more likely the D will be convicted does not mean it is unfairly prejudicial (Festa; Papakosmas) – the prejudice is unfair when there is a real risk that the evidence will be misused by the jury in some unfair way (R v BD; Papakosmas; Festa) that goes beyond the probative value it may properly be given (Festa).

  • Over-react in an illogical way?: Jury may use evidence to make a decision on an improper, emotional, basis. Evidence may appeal to fact-finders sympathies, arouse a sense of horror, provokes an instinct to punish, triggers other human action: Papakosmas

  • Give more weight to particular piece of evidence than it deserves?: Yates; R v Em

  • Rely on it on a basis logically unconnected to the issues in the case: Taylor

  • Considerations: judge should have regard to what warnings or directions might be given to the jury that such prejudice does not arise: R v Em (on s 137)

  • Example of what isn’t unfair prejudice:

    1. R v Em – that police secretly recorded accused making admissions of guilt – the only prejudicial effect was to prove that the accused committed the offences.

  • Procedural considerations included (Dyldam): Being unable to XE on a vital issue may create significant prejudice (but did not in): Ordukaya. Here the D was medically unfit to attend court, P couldn’t test D’s evidence in XE.

S 135(b) misleading or confusing

  • Written transcripts of show allegedly defamatory: Reading v ABC – written transcript of a program allegedly defamatory, meant that there was a real risk the jury will be distracted to prejudice of both parties and thus administration of justice by the temptation unduly to concentrate on a written record where there is vido evidence

  • Hypothetical decision-making: Eg Hughes Aircraft Systems – issue of loss of opportunity from breaches of contract – evidence about hypothetical decision-making, upon 14 assumptions, was...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Litigation 2 - Evidence Law Notes.

More Litigation 2 Evidence Law Samples