Evidence Law: Relevance and Admissibility

Anthony Marcak introduces the fundamental concepts of evidence law: relevance and admissibility. He emphasizes their importance for understanding the course material and suggests that students seek help if they struggle with these concepts. The lecture aims to explain the meaning of relevance, the application of the admissibility rules, judicial discretion, and the concept of a 'Voir Dire' (a trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of evidence).

The relevance rule is the core principle of evidence law, stating that relevant evidence should be considered by the court unless excluded by a special rule. Evidence is considered relevant if it tends to prove a fact in issue, either alone or in conjunction with other facts, considering the common course of events. The definition of relevance is derived from the case 'R v Belan', highlighting four elements that determine the relevance of evidence.

While all relevant evidence should be considered, special admissibility rules may exclude certain evidence. These rules are based on the Uniform Evidence Act, which provides a specific definition of relevance. The Act states that evidence is relevant if it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. The bar for relevance is low, allowing even poor evidence to be considered as long as it slightly moves the probability balance.

The script discusses different types of evidence, including direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and prescribed evidence, which is considered without relevance due to legislative decisions. Presumptions are also highlighted, where the law assumes a fact to be true unless evidence is provided to the contrary. An example of survivorship presumption is given, explaining how the law handles cases where it's unclear who died first in a double fatality.

The concept of judicial notice is introduced, where certain well-known facts are considered so notorious that they do not require proof. An example of this is the sequence of days in a week. Prescribed evidence, where parliament dictates the type of proof required for a specific fact, is also discussed, using the example of vehicle ownership in Queensland's Road Use Management Act.

Admissibility rules are exclusionary, preventing certain relevant evidence from being considered by the court. Evidence may be excluded due to inherent unreliability, potential to mislead, or public policy demands. Judicial discretion allows judges to exclude evidence that could result in injustice, such as evidence obtained unlawfully or through trickery.

The script notes that many legislative changes have exempted authorities from the full rules of evidence in certain contexts, such as family court or administrative tribunals. It advises students to always refer to the specific legislation governing their area of law to ensure the rules of evidence apply.

A Vader hearing (Voir Dire) is a preliminary proceeding to determine the admissibility of specific evidence. It is often conducted without the jury and before the main trial begins, allowing both sides to know which evidence will be admissible. The standard of proof in a Vader hearing is complex and may vary depending on the context.