Class Notes (838,093)
Australia (1,845)
Law (441)
JSB171 (400)
All (349)
Lecture

6.3 Exceptions--Admissions & Confessions

6 Pages
56 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law
Course
JSB171
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Spring

Description
Exceptions to Hearsay—Admissions & Confessions  Threshold test of relevance Whether it rationally affects the assessment of the probability of the existence of the main facts in issue: Wakely and Bartley (possession of heroin—evidence that police officer present at raid died of overdose of heroin  relevant to whether accused in possession)  Hearsay—Exclusionary Rule Out of court statements used to prove the truth of their contents are inadmissible hearsay (Walton per Mason CJ; Subramaniuam per Wilberforce LJ) because it is not the best evidence given on oath, and the opportunity to cross-examine is lost: Teper v R  Exception to Hearsay  INFORMAL ADMISSIONS (Civil & Criminal) Generally General Rule—admission made by a party out of court is admissible against them: Parkes (because what a party himself admits may reasonably be presumed to be true)  Applies to both Civil and Criminal Effect → if admission proven, entire statement must be entered into evidence (cannot sever context)  If admission also contains material favourable to the plaintiff‟s case → both entered Form Can be express or implied, by—  words (written or oral): Jogender Singh Bains v Yorkshire Insurance Co  by conduct (acts, acquiescence, demeanour): Thatcher v Charles; Parkes (murder—mother of victim: “why did you stab her?”—silent & lunged at mother with knife  admission by conduct)  Drawing inferences— (Weissensteiner) o Judge—determines if the adverse inference is open to consideration: Weissensteiner (murder—“they will never find those two”  adverse inference) o Jury—determines whether to draw adverse inference rd 3 Party Admissions—Personal knowledge not required  3P can bind other people in some cases, such as— o Partners: s18 Partnership Act o Successors in title o Servants or agents of parties to a case (civil) or an accused (criminal)  Civil cases— o Personal knowledge not required if intention to affirm fact admitted regardless of source: Lustre Hosiery v Yorke (action to recover debt—admission as to amount by 3P who could bind defendant—3P had no direct knowledge  still admissible against defendant so long as 3P believed what they were admitting || but reliability dependent on remoteness of source) o BUT no personal knowledge → little evidentiary value: Lustre Hosiery v Yorke (3P admittor had no knowledge  weight variable according to remoteness of source)  Criminal Cases— o Personal knowledge not required o BUT judge has discretion to exclude based on unreliability (fairness discretion) Andrew Trotter LWB432 Evidence Statement made to or in the presence of the accused Unequivocal adoption | acceptance If statement unequivocally adopted/accepted → admission: Doolan (statement by co-accused— recognised  not admission, just recognition that blamed)  Must be unequivocal acceptance—implication not sufficient: Doolan (statement by co-accused— “I thought that bastard had more bloody sense that to give you fellows a statement. He has dobbed us all in.”  insufficient—just recognition that blamed)  Can be acceptance in part: R v RPS (sexual offences against daughter—allegation that digitally & penetrated—“I never had intercourse with her but everything else she said is true”  admission of everything except sexual penetration); Hall per Lord Diplock (if accepts in part only, then only admission to that extent) Silence in face of allegation [→ also Contrary Demeanour] Right to silence in criminal cases: Petty v Maiden; Hall (from privilege against self-incrimination: R v RPS)  No adverse inference from failure to answer questions (Petty v Maiden)  Staying silent then later raising a defence → no inference that a recent invention: Petty v Maiden o BUT If answered questions then changes explanation → adverse inference to credit only— not inference of guilt: Petty v Maiden (murder—statements by accused P: at committal said M killed W | at trial said P (himself) killed W but self-defence & accident—ie accused changed his story  suggestion of recent invention allowed → inference as to credit)  Obligation to caution for indictable offences: s431 PPRA o For non-indictable offences—see judges rules, guidelines for police conduct and cases R v W (children) and Anunga (aboriginals) o If breached, discretion to admit in interests of justice: s439 PPRA Silence implying an adoption Failure to deny only constitutes an implied adoption if a denial could be expected in the circumstances: Parkes; Thatcher v Charles; Salahattan; Hall; Weiderman  Parties are on an equal standing → expected that an innocent person would deny it → failure to do so can imply guilt: Parkes (murder—mother of victim: “what she do you, why you stab her?”— silent & lunged at mother with knife  police had not arrived = equal terms—response would be expected from innocent person → admission) o UNLESS reasonable to remain silent in the circumstances because—  Offender upset / in shock  Confronted with distraught witness (eg mother of victim)  Allegation does not wholly relate to the event that took place (Thatcher v Charles (negligence—child run over—silent to allegation: “you always drive too fast”  reasonable not to contest → no admission))  Parties on unequal standing (eg being interviewed by police) → no adverse inference: Hall (drug possession—accused absent during search—allegation by occupant of house that accused put it there—only police & accused—accused silent  not admission || perhaps in exceptional circumstances) o UNLESS surrounding circumstances would in the ordinary experience lead an innocent person to express dissent: Salahattan (drug possession—accused present during search— answered some questions—then would not respond to co-accused‟s allegation—co- accused, police & S when making allegation  admission ← answered some questions but not others) Andrew Trotter LWB432 Evidence Failure to testify at trial  Accused competent but not compellable to testify in own defence: s8(1) QEA Generally—not an implied admission or evidence of guilt: Weissensteiner  Accused entitled to put the Crown to its proof  Must reflect on other reasons why person might refrain from testifying— o Sick o Nervous about testifying o Protecting someone else  Cannot draw adverse inference from failure to call other evidence: Dyers v R [2002] (failure to call eye witness  no adverse inference) Strengthens Inferences in Some Cases  If can be expected to contradict allegations with an innocent explanation—strengthens inferences otherwise available from Crown case—where— o strong circumstantial evidence; and o facts perceived to be within accused‟s knowledge; and o reasonable to expect explanation if there was an innocent explanation Weissensteiner (murder—accused would not testify—strong circumstantial case: hired as crewman on boat | boat back with only accused | personal belongings still in boat | inconsistent statements about whereabouts etc  could draw inference ← all facts within his knowledge | strong circumstantial case | reasonable to expect an explanation) ← Supported by R v Surrey (killing & dumping dismembered bodies  accused the only person who could provide explanation)  Requires strong circumstantial evidence: Azzopardis (direction not to be used lightly) Direction  Court cannot suggest that equates to admission of guilt: R v RPS  Can point out that Crown case un-contradicted, therefore safer to draw inference: Weissensteiner Conduct revealing a consciousness of guilt Flight: Melrose  Evidence of guilt in both civil and criminal cases: Melrose (rape—left country for Holland for 10 years—on return said left because charged with offence  admissible) o Not conclusive—accused can bring evidence to justify (eg mother was dying)  TJ must first be satisfied that it reveals consciousness of guilt—whether there is an explanation for the flight (determined at voir dire): Melrose (rape—left country for Holland for 10 years  first had t
More Less

Related notes for JSB171

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit