Exclusionary Rules of Evidence
‘The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) includes too many exclusionary rules to otherwise relevant evidence, and the rationales for those exclusionary rules are often questionable or unclear. As a result, useful evidence is excluded from proceedings. A better approach would be to allow the trier of fact to receive all of the available evidence and to evaluate its weight.’
Introduction
The Victorian Evidence Act 2008 (‘the Act’) contains a number of provisions that prevent certain types of evidence or evidence collected under certain circumstances from being admitted before the trier of fact. There are also a number of provisions that provide discretionary powers to the judge of a trial to exclude evidence. The types of …show more content…
In their 1987 report Evidence the Australian Law Reform Commission highlighted that in the attempt to establish the facts a criminal trial also depends on the other matters including procedural fairness, efficiency and the quality of the rules. This report also reinforced the tenets of the presumption of innocent until proved guilty, that the accused is under no obligation to assist the prosecution and that “in the interest of the community that the risk of conviction of the innocent be minimised even if this may result in the acquittal from time to time of the guilty”.
This doctrine of evidence law, particularly in the criminal cases, reinforces the intention, purpose and need of the exclusionary rules in the Act. They are designed to protect an accused person from wrongful conviction and maintain their right to a fair trial, which is a “central pillar to our criminal justice system”. The High Court has said that a right to a fair trial is …show more content…
Lord Moulton held:
“The law is so much on its guard against the accused being prejudiced by evidence which, though admissible, would probably have a prejudicial influence on the minds of the jury”
This exclusionary rule, which went on to be called Christie discretion, was based on this notion of securing a fair trial for the accused and was later synthesised in ss 135 - 137 of the Act. The rationale for this exclusionary rules and the others found within the Act are not questionable or unclear but entrenched in a core and fundamental value of our legal system. That the credibility of the trial system relies on the prevailing notion of accusatorial and procedural fairness, avoidance of wrongful convictions and recognition of rights of individual.
Exclusionary rules and the judge
To ensure the purpose and intention of the exclusionary rules are implemented to the satisfaction of lawmakers and community it is undoubtedly clear the judge plays a critical role in maintaining the fairness of a trial and protect an accused person from wrongful
‘The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) includes too many exclusionary rules to otherwise relevant evidence, and the rationales for those exclusionary rules are often questionable or unclear. As a result, useful evidence is excluded from proceedings. A better approach would be to allow the trier of fact to receive all of the available evidence and to evaluate its weight.’
Introduction
The Victorian Evidence Act 2008 (‘the Act’) contains a number of provisions that prevent certain types of evidence or evidence collected under certain circumstances from being admitted before the trier of fact. There are also a number of provisions that provide discretionary powers to the judge of a trial to exclude evidence. The types of …show more content…
In their 1987 report Evidence the Australian Law Reform Commission highlighted that in the attempt to establish the facts a criminal trial also depends on the other matters including procedural fairness, efficiency and the quality of the rules. This report also reinforced the tenets of the presumption of innocent until proved guilty, that the accused is under no obligation to assist the prosecution and that “in the interest of the community that the risk of conviction of the innocent be minimised even if this may result in the acquittal from time to time of the guilty”.
This doctrine of evidence law, particularly in the criminal cases, reinforces the intention, purpose and need of the exclusionary rules in the Act. They are designed to protect an accused person from wrongful conviction and maintain their right to a fair trial, which is a “central pillar to our criminal justice system”. The High Court has said that a right to a fair trial is …show more content…
Lord Moulton held:
“The law is so much on its guard against the accused being prejudiced by evidence which, though admissible, would probably have a prejudicial influence on the minds of the jury”
This exclusionary rule, which went on to be called Christie discretion, was based on this notion of securing a fair trial for the accused and was later synthesised in ss 135 - 137 of the Act. The rationale for this exclusionary rules and the others found within the Act are not questionable or unclear but entrenched in a core and fundamental value of our legal system. That the credibility of the trial system relies on the prevailing notion of accusatorial and procedural fairness, avoidance of wrongful convictions and recognition of rights of individual.
Exclusionary rules and the judge
To ensure the purpose and intention of the exclusionary rules are implemented to the satisfaction of lawmakers and community it is undoubtedly clear the judge plays a critical role in maintaining the fairness of a trial and protect an accused person from wrongful