Class Notes (806,814)
Australia (1,849)
Law (441)
JSB171 (400)
All (349)

Rule in Browne v Dunn

2 Pages
Unlock Document

Queensland University of Technology

Nick Dowse Rule in Browne v Dunn Rule in Browne v Dunn – Structure of Answer 1. The fundamental objectives in cross-examination are to: a. Obtain evidence in support of own case; b. Quality, weaken or destroy evidence given in chief; and c. Attack the credit of the witness 2. If you plan to contradict a witness’s examination in chief, you must put the contradictory statement to the witness to give them an opportunity to respond (Browne v Dunn). a. “When cross-examining [witness], did [counsel] comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn?” b. Must put the alternative case to each and every one of the other side’s witnesses. c. Usually starts with “I put it to you that…” d. Applies in both civil and criminal cases (Smith v Advanced Electrics). 3. Rationale for rule: a. Based on fairness b. A failure to adhere results in a denial of the witness’s opportunity to: (Allied Pastoral Holdings) i. Demonstrate mettle under attack; ii. Explain or qualify the contradicting evidence; and iii. Call corroborative/contradicting evidence (as the case may be). 4. How rule is breached a. By not cross-examining at all; or b. Not putting those parts of the case which contradict or challenge the witness; then c. Calling other evidence which contradicts them; or d. Inviting of fact to either reject the witnesses’ evidence or draw inferences contrary to their evidence. i. Eg: if going to call a later witness to contradict the first evidence, you need to put to the current witness the scenarios the other witness is going to talk about. 5. Effect of breach of rule a. opponent allowed to call rebuttal evidence b. implied acceptance of the evidence-in-chief c. Recall of witness not warned of refutation d. Denial of offending party right to challenge witness in addresses (Allied Pastoral Holdings) e. Abortion of trial f. Strong warnings by judge to the jury about consequences of breach g. Denial of opportunity to call contradicting evidence (Payless Supabarn) h. Findings can be overturned on appeal (Smith v Advanced Electronics) Allied Pastoral Holdings v FCT • Tax case involving s 26(a) of the 1936 Act – income arising from the sale of a property acquired for the purpose of making a profit by sale • There was a seven year gap between the time purchased and the date that the property was sold • The commissioner asserted that the reason that the property was not sold before that date was that it was kept ‘under wraps’ until there was a suitable ‘staged development’ – therefore the section applied • Counsel for the Commissioner failed to put the ‘staged development theory’ to any of the defence’s witnesses in cross-examination • Held: There are many reasons why it should be made clear, prior to final add
More Less

Related notes for JSB171

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.