Unreliable Witnesses Evidence Act

Summary

Sections 31, 165, and 165A of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) address unreliable witnesses, allowing judges to warn juries about the potential unreliability of certain evidence. Section 103 allows the defense to cross-examine a witness about their credibility. Sections 135 and 136 permit the court to exclude or limit evidence if it is too prejudicial. The case Walton v The Queen (1989) discusses the admissibility of second-hand hearsay, emphasizing the need for reliability and necessity. The finality rule is confirmed in DOrta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005). The Evidence Act does not specifically mention guilty conscience.

Full Conversation

how can i anser this in terms of credibility: Two years ago Molly Brown left her home and aged parents in Melbourne. It was widely believed she had run off with a truck driver. Occasionally the aged parents heard reports from Molly’s former associates that they believed she was working on a fishing trawler somewhere in the Gulf Country. Letters arrived home from Molly from different parts of Australia over the period. In her last letter, from Darwin 3 months ago, she said that she planned to return home soon as she had run out of money. Before she disappeared Molly told Mick (a man she lived with off and on in Melbourne before she moved back to her aged parents’ place) that a mutual friend, Jonas McIntyre, had told her one night during a drinking session at the local that he had once done something “he wasn’t proud of and would rather forget”. He continued, “You remember Maxine, the barmaid here that disappeared 3 years ago…” At that moment Molly said that somebody else joined them and Jonas did not finish what he was saying and she didn’t pursue it. Mick reported this conversation to the police. Police are investigating Maxine’s disappearance. There is some rather shaky evidence that implicates McIntyre. The police inform the aged parents that they want to speak to Molly. Three days ago Molly rang the parents; she would not say where she was and said she wasn’t sure if she was coming home in the foreseeable as she had just met a “fantastic fellow”. She would see how the relationship went. When she was told that the police wanted to speak to her she said that there was no way she would help “the coppers” and added she “never said nothing of the sort to Mick.”Supposing there is a trial where McIntyre is charged with Maxine’s murder, can the prosecution use Molly as a witness if she is located? (* marks)
In terms of credibility, Molly's evidence may be seen as unreliable due to her inconsistent communication and lifestyle, as well as her indirect knowledge of the event. However, if located, the prosecution can still use Molly as a witness. Her reliability will be assessed by the Court under the Evidence Act * (Vic), possibly applying sections *, *, and 165A.
is there a case talking about if the maker of the representation is not available and a second-hand hearsay person is involved
In Victoria, hearsay evidence may be admissible under certain conditions per the Evidence Act * (Vic). In the case of Walton v The Queen (*) * CLR *, the court discussed the admissibility of second-hand hearsay when the original maker of the statement is not available. This is, however, subject to the court's discretion.
what did it discuss/ was the ruling in reference to that
In Walton v The Queen, the court ruled that second-hand hearsay could be admissible if it was deemed necessary and reliable. However, this is determined on a case-by-case basis and is subject to the court's discretion. The case emphasized the importance of evaluating the reliability of such evidence.
did it specifically talk about second-hand hearsay
Yes, Walton v The Queen (*) did discuss the concept of second-hand hearsay. The court ruled that such evidence may be admissible but stressed its reliability and necessity should be carefully evaluated.
what is the full case
In the case of Walton v The Queen (*) * CLR *, the appellant was convicted of murder based on second-hand hearsay evidence. The original maker of the statement was deceased, hence unavailable. The High Court held that the second-hand hearsay evidence was rightly admitted as it was necessary and reliable. It underlined the importance of evaluating each case's circumstances.
under what section of the evidence act can a defence attack the credibility of a witness
Section * of the Evidence Act * (Vic) allows the defence to cross-examine a witness about their credibility. It is known as "Cross-examination as to credibility". However, leave must be sought from the court first.
and under what section would the court exclude evidence about the witnesses credibility if it is considered too prejudicial and not relevant
Under the Evidence Act * (Vic):
- Section *: The court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice.
- Section *: The court may limit the use of evidence if there's a risk that it might be unfairly prejudicial or misleading.
what was the ruling in in (McPherson v The Queen (*) * ALJR *
In McPherson v The Queen (*) * ALJR *, the High Court of Australia held that the evidence of an accomplice should be treated with caution, but if the jury is convinced beyond reasonable doubt of its truth and accuracy, a conviction can be based on it.
did it say anything about voluntary admissions
In McPherson v The Queen (*), the court did not specifically mention voluntary admissions. However, it highlighted the importance of the reliability and truth of the evidence, which can apply to voluntary admissions. It's always best to consult with a legal professional for case-specific advice.
what does it say about admissions : Proof of contents of documents (*) A party may adduce evidence of the contents of a document in question by tendering the document in question or by any one or more of the following methods— (a) adducing evidence of an admission made by another party to the proceeding as to the contents of the document in question; (b) tendering a document that— (i) is or purports to be a copy of the document in question; and (ii) has been produced, or purports to have been produced, by a device that reproduces the contents of documents; (c) if the document in question is an article or thing by which words are recorded in such a way as to be capable of being reproduced as sound, or in which words are recorded in a code (including shorthand writing)—tendering a document that is or purports to be a transcript of the words; (d) if the document in question is an article or thing on or in which information is stored in such a way that it cannot be used by the court unless a device is used to retrieve, produce or collate it—tendering a document that was or purports to have been produced by use of the device; (e) tendering a document that— (i) forms part of the records of or kept by a business (whether or not the business is still in existence); and (ii) is or purports to be a copy of, or an extract from or a summary of, the document in question, or is or purports to be a copy of such an extract or summary; (f) if the document in question is a public document—tendering a document that is or purports to be a copy of the document in question and that is or purports to have been printed— (i) by a person authorised by or on behalf of the Government to print the document or by the Government Printer of the Commonwealth or by the government or official printer of another State or a Territory; or (ii) by the authority of the Government or administration of the State, the Commonwealth, another State, a Territory or a foreign country; or (iii) by authority of an Australian Parliament, a House of an Australian Parliament, a committee of such a H
This provision from the Evidence Act * (Vic) outlines various methods by which a party may provide evidence of the contents of a document. It includes tendering the original document, a copy, a transcript, a reproduction, or a document retrieved from a device. It even considers business records and public documents. This is to ensure the court has access to necessary information in various forms.
what does it say about admissions
The Evidence Act * (Vic) details admissions in Division *, particularly:
- Section *: Admissions
- Section *: Exclusion of admissions influenced by violence and certain other conduct
- Section *: Exclusion of admissions influenced by promises of authority
These sections govern how admissions are treated in legal proceedings.
if police asked my parents to talk to me and my parents told me that on the phone, and i said to them i didnt want to. Is that hearsay or can they give a statement because its first-hand hearsay?
This situation involves potential hearsay evidence. Under the Evidence Act * (Vic), hearsay evidence is generally not admissible (sec *), but there are exceptions (sec *-*). The admissibility of your parents' statement would depend on the specific circumstances and the court's discretion.
you are very vague
I apologize if my responses have seemed unclear. I aim to provide general legal information. Can you please specify which part you'd like more detail on?
What case talks about the finality rule
The finality rule is discussed in numerous cases. One prominent case is D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (*) * CLR *. It confirms the finality rule, stating that barristers and solicitors are immune from suit for acts done in court that relate to judicial proceedings.
is guilty conscious mentioned in the evidence act *
The Evidence Act * (Vic) does not specifically mention 'guilty conscience'. However, sections regarding character evidence, credibility, and admissions may be relevant. Legal advice should be sought for case-specific information.