What is the “woolmington” principle?
That the burden of proof lies clearly with the prosecution in relation to all of the elements of the offence.
What are the exceptions to the Woolmington principle?
Where the burden of proof is set on the Defence.
- Defence of insanity
- any other statutory exception in law, such as the offence of possessing an offensive weapon, prima facie.
- public welfare offences.
What should be told to juries about “reasonable doubt” as in R v Wanhalla?
That reasonable doubt is “an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence”.
What is reasonable doubt?
A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the accused after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence.
The purpose of the Evidence Act 2006 as stated in section 6.
The act aims to “help secure the just determination of proceedings by”
- providing for facts to be established by the application of logical rules.
- providing rules of evidence that recognise the importance of the rights affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
- promoting fairness to parties and witnesses.
- protecting rights of confidentiality and other public interests.
- avoiding unjustifiable expense and delay.
- enhancing access to the law of evidence.
What are the facts related to “facts in issue”?
The facts related to the facts in issue tend to prove or disprove the facts in issue. Such as indirect evidence that peice together to prove a fact in issue. Eg forensics placing an offender at the scene even if they weren’t witnessed at the scene directly.
What is circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is a fact from which a judge of jury may infer the existence of a fact in issue. It offers indirect proof of a fact in issue. These can compound to become stronger, where multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence when viewed as a whole are sufficient to prove guilt.
What two exceptions to the general rule that “all facts in issue and facts related to the facts in issue must be proven by evidence”?
- a judicial notice is taken.
- the facts are formally admitted.
What is a judicial notice?
When a court takes a judicial notice it declares that it will find that the fact exists even if evidence for it has not been established. This relates to facts that are common knowledge or obvious, such as Christmas being on the 25th of December.
JN can be found in sections 128 and 129 of the Evidence Act 2006.
What are “presumptions”?
Where no direct evidence is offered or obtainable disputed facts are sometimes inferred from other facts which are themselves proven or known. This inference is called a presumption.
It comes in two forms:
Presumptions of law
Presumption of fact.
In deciding if evidence is admissible, what three broad areas taken into consideration?
- relevance
- reliability
- unfairness
What are the fundamental principles that relevant evidence is admissible as in section 7 of the Evidence Act 2006?
(1) All relevant evidence is admissible except
- evidence that is inadmissible under this act.
- excluded under this act or any other.
(2) evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.
(3) evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding.
Evidence must be relevant and then it’s admissibility weighed against the other relevant consideration. (All irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, however not all relevant evidence is admissible)
What two ways evidence may be deemed unfair and excluded by the judge?
- evidence may be excluded under section 8 if it would result in some unfair prejudice in the proceeding.
- evidence that has been obtained in circumstances that would make its admission against the defendant unfair. E.g a confession gained by improper means.
Evidence under section 8 of the Evidence Act (1)a and (b) must be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the risk the evidence will?
- have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceedings.
- needlessly prolong the proceeding.
What is meant by “unfair prejudicial effect on the proceeding” in relation to section 8 of the evidence act 2006?
“Unfair prejudice” will typically refer to the danger that a fact finder will give some piece of evidence more weight than it deserves, be misled by evidence or use evidence for an illegitimate purpose. This can be for either defence or prosecution or unfair for the proceedings in general if it causes the jury members to be drawn away from the real issues in the trial.
What is meant by “needlessly prolong the proceedings” under section 8(1)(b) in relation to general exclusion of evidence?
Evidence that is relevant how ever is not required. Eg Defendant calling 20 witnesses give evidence as to his veracity, the judge may shorten this to 2 witnesses.
When can inadmissible evidence be allowed?
Under section 9 of the evidence act evidence, even if it is inadmissible by agreement between both parties. This is at the discretion of the judge who retains control of the process as per R v Hannigan.
Although once admissible, evidence can be used in different ways to prove “anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceedings” what are some exceptions to this general rule?
- s27, controls on pre-trial statements of defendants and co-defendants.
- s31, forbids the prosecution from relying on certain evidence offered by defendants.
S 32, forbids the fact finder from using a criminal defendants pre-trial silence as evidence offered guilt.
All facts in issue and facts relevant to the issue must be proven by evidence, what are the two exceptions of this?
-Where judicial notice is taken of facts.
- when facts are formally admitted.
