This is an extract of our Relevance 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:
RELEVANCE The first threshold to admissibility of evidence is whether evidence is relevant. If evidence is irrelevant, then the evidence is inadmissible. Evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding (s55 EA) X should note that the evidence can be relevant for more than one purpose. If it can rationally affect the fact in issue in more than one way, each way has to be subsequently subject to the threshold of admissibility. Example: A said "I hate you". This is relevant to prove they can speak and to prove the person was in a particular place. This is also relevant to prove they said the words "I hate you". The statement therefore has two potential uses. The first use is to prove they were there and the second is to prove they said a particular order of words.
[Choose from the following]:
- The evidence that [insert evidence] is likely to pass the relevance threshold because it would rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of [fact in issue]. o [If you want to exclude it anyway]: However, under section 135 of the Evidence Act, the evidence can still be excluded if X can argue that the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might [Choose one of the following]:
? Be unfairly prejudicial to [party]
? Be misleading or confusing.
? Cause or result in undue waste of time
- The evidence that [insert evidence] is unlikely to pass the relevance threshold because it would not rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of [fact in issue].
EVANS V THE QUEEN Observing how the accused walked or how he spoke certain words would be relevant to the identification of the accused as the person seen and heard by the witnesses, but dressing the accused in the clothing worn by the person seen by the witnesses gave no assistance to the jury in determining whether he was the person seen by the witnesses Kirby in dissent argued that the issue of relevance is a broad gate, and while relevant, it is very "dangerous, unfair, humiliating and prejudicial".
SMITH V THE QUEEN Where evidence of identification depends on a photograph taken by a security camera, it is for the jury to determine whether the accused is shown in the photograph, and evidence by a police
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence and Criminal Procedure Notes.