Evidence 1 - Witness Credibility Tutorial PDF

Preview

Summary

Witness Credibility Tutorial...

Description

Evidence: Meaning of section 101A Evidence Act Amended Effect to address Section 102 sets out the rule (credibility evidence is not admissible) If it's relevant for something else, we don't have to worry about credibility evidence. 3 girls- proving truth of statement. Credibility rule, slide over that hurdle. Implicit, other purpose is admissible. However, in Adam, high court said not so at all. Other purpose doesn't have to be relevant. Where did they say, other evidence has to be relevant and admissible. In Adam's case, other evidence was inadmissible, allowed the court to circumvent the credibility rule’ Sneaking through on the basis that it’s relevant for another purpose, even though the other purpose is inadmissible. Evidence act was amended to get around strict High court (strict wording, only evidence, nothing on admissible). 101A, give effect properly in what is intended. Evidence that is relevant only to a witness’s credibility (credibility evidence) if the other purpose is inadmissible. What does credibility mean? Credibility of a witness means credibility in any part, observe, or remember facts and events. If evidence is credibility evidence, witness is incredible witness, something affecting any part of their evidence (trouble remembering facts). Eg. Honesty/ reliability of recollection (motives to lie), visual impairments or trouble remembering things (attacking the circumstances of witness)- cognitive impairment or drunk, normally wearing glasses but haven’t got them on, on the night, how far away where they standing, was it dark was it light. Inconsistency statement, adverse to the crown’s casegoing off the script and something different on another occasion. Section 108- consistence statement- credibility also about making it look good in the jury’s eyes. Able to bring up to prior convictions of the witness for honesty- lied under oath. General character is something that can’t be used for credibility eg. Witness cheated on wife, cruel to animals. Destroying credibility in front of the jury. Credibility evidence- Evidence is credibility solely to the witness. Rule is set out on 102. Credibility evidence is not admissible, however there are exceptions.

Not admissible in terms of general attacks to the person’s character. Unable to bag the witness. It would take days. -

All the exceptions allowed in. 1. Cross examination to discredit the credibility of the witness.

Problem Question: Under section 38. Given a previous inconsistent statement. Crown sought leave to do something with the inconsistent statement. 1. Under section 101 (a), it is credibility evidence- affect the assessment of the credibility of the witness. 2. Hit a hurdle. Unable to let credibility evidence in (Section 102 say that it is not admissible) 3. Look at exception. Section 103- credibility rule does not apply in circumstances to evidence adduced in cross examination. Has substantially affect the assessment of the credibility witness in the eyes of the jury without limiting matters. If: o Evidence tends to show witness made false statement when under oath to tell the truth. Knowingly made false representation in court. o Time lapse to the events relate, witness is giving evidence of something that is happing low time ago. Ultimately trying to get in consistent statement for credibility use. 103 2 a knowingly made a false representation Cross examination on the fact that he made another statement on another occasion that is different to what they are saying today. Do not have to give witness full particulars of the statement, do not have to point out statement or show it to him. “Isn’t it right?” Hoping witness will adopt it with “Yes I did”. Prosecutor has the power to bring the statement up, quite often the unfavourable witness suddenly remembers. Problem comes when witness says no. Deny that they have made a statement. S 106, able to produce this statement. Jury have not seen the statement. Leave is not required. 4. 43 2 If in cross examination, witness doesn’t admit they have inconsistent statement. Not to induce evidence at this stage, unless in the cross examination, cross examiner informed the witness on enough circumstances of the statement to enable them to identify it. Draw witness to as much of the statement that is inconsistent as today and still hoping they would be adopted. If they do not, bring it up to the jury and the jury would be able to assess it. Witness denies all and the court gives leave. Rebut denials under S106.

Court must have regard to s192. Would be an appeal point if judge do not refer to s192. Taking into account: Nature of the proceeding, unfair, importance, etc. Anything used to discredit a witness is not allowed, unless it falls under the exception of s106. Hide behind the shield, previous convictions and dishonest on witness, motive to be untruthful. 103 (Attack on credit) Attacked witness, proving that they lied or untruthful, shield can be lowered with leave. S 108 consistency of the witness. Bolstering credibility of the witness and re-establishing credibility. If witness has been hammered in cross examination. Ask question to bolster credibility. Eg. Witness made prior consistent statement, no doubt that it is made up. “Doesn’t apply to a previous consistent statement”. Will be suggested that it’s fabricated....