Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Admissions Notes

Law Notes > Evidence and Criminal Procedure Notes

This is an extract of our Admissions document, which we sell as part of our Evidence and Criminal Procedure Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Technology Sydney students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Evidence and Criminal Procedure Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

ADMISSIONS As an admission may have been made by [defendant] the rules of hearsay do not apply (s81). Under section 81 the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of an admission or evidence of a previous representation that was made in relation to an admission at the time the admission was made or shortly after to which it is reasonably necessary to refer in order to understand the admission. It is first essential to determine whether it is an admission under Part 1 Definition. The words '[Insert words]' are an admission because they are a previous representation that is made [defendant] which is adverse to [defendant's] interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Inculpatory admissions An inculpatory admission is one that either expressly or impliedly establishes guilt, such as a confession. Exculpatory admissions Exculpatory conduct is conduct which attempts to deny guilt (a lie). Exculpatory conduct only become an exculpatory admission when there is something which turns the representation against that persons interests, for example denying you committed the crime then the prosecutor admitting evidence that you are lying. First there must be a deliberate lie about a material fact in issue. It must be told deliberately as a result of the realisation that the truth could implicate death. There must be a consciousness of guilt. There must be directions from the trial judge to the jury about that consciousness of that guilt (Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193) R v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426 Facts: Horton was convicted of murder by stabbing. She stabbed the deceased during an argument involving herself and a witness. After the stabbing, she instructed the deceased and the witness to tell police that that the deceased had fallen on the knife. However the deceased told the police that the appellant had stabbed him. Horton told the police that at the scene that the deceased had fallen on the knife. No caution was given and no recording was made at the time of questioning during which she made this statement. After the arrest and during a recorded interview at the police station, she changed her story and said that the deceased had been stabbed by the witness. During the police interview the defendant did not adopt her earlier statement that the deceased had fallen on the knife. She stated that she could not remember making that statement. Horton's defence at trial was that she was a chronic alcoholic and that the days prior to the stabbing she had been drinking heavily and was unable to remember the events surrounding the stabbing and subsequent interview. She also alleged she did not recall telling the witness to give a false account to the police. The crown relied on the unrecorded interview to argue that although the claims of intoxication, the appellant was not particularly affected by it as he was capable of furnishing an exculpatory statement thus forming the requisite intention for murder. R v Christie [1914] AC 545 Facts: The Crown sought to lead evidence of the silence of the accused contending that in the circumstances it amounted to an admission. Held: The House of Lords judgment spoke about an accusation plus a denial plus some demeanor which by implication admits the accusation. This can be turned into an

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence and Criminal Procedure Notes.