Evidence plays a crucial role in the criminal trial process, as it is the means by which facts are established to prove or disprove the guilt of an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt. The admissibility of evidence in New South Wales (NSW) criminal trials is governed by a complex set of rules and considerations, primarily outlined in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

These rules aim to ensure fairness during the trial and sentencing, protect against false imprisonment, and uphold the fundamental principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This article will provide an overview of the key concepts of relevance and admissibility of evidence in NSW criminal proceedings, using practical examples to illustrate how these concepts can significantly impact the outcome of a criminal trial.

Types of Evidence in NSW Criminal Trials

In NSW criminal trials, there are three main types of evidence that may be presented to the court: oral evidence, documentary evidence, and real evidence. Each type of evidence is governed by specific rules outlined in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to ensure fairness and reliability.

Oral evidence

Oral evidence refers to the testimony given by witnesses in court. This includes examination-in-chief, where the party who called the witness asks questions; cross-examination, where the opposing party questions the witness; and re-examination, where the original party clarifies any issues that arose during cross-examination.

The rules surrounding witness testimony aim to ensure that the evidence given is reliable and not unduly influenced. For example, leading questions (which suggest a particular answer) are generally not allowed during examination-in-chief but may be used in cross-examination.

Documentary evidence

Documentary evidence includes any record of information, such as written documents, maps, plans, drawings, or photographs. Under the Evidence Act, the definition of “document” is broad and encompasses both physical and digital records.

For documentary evidence to be admissible in court, it must be relevant to the case and properly authenticated. This means that there must be evidence to show that the document is what it purports to be.

Real evidence

Real evidence, also known as “other evidence,” refers to physical objects or materials that are relevant to the case. This could include weapons, clothing, or other items that provide information about the alleged crime.

When real evidence is presented in court, the judge and jury can form their own opinions based on their perception of the object. However, the admissibility of real evidence is still subject to the general rules of evidence, such as relevance and reliability.

In summary, the three main types of evidence in NSW criminal trials – oral evidence, documentary evidence, and real evidence – each play a crucial role in establishing the facts of a case. The rules governing their admissibility and use ensure that the evidence presented is fair, reliable, and relevant to the issues at hand.

Key Rules of Evidence Admissibility in NSW under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Evidence admissibility is a crucial aspect of criminal trials in New South Wales. The rules governing the admissibility of evidence are primarily found in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and aim to ensure that only relevant, reliable, and fairly obtained evidence is presented to the court. This section will discuss some of the key rules of evidence admissibility in NSW criminal proceedings.

Relevance: The Fundamental Rule of Evidence

Relevance is the most basic and essential rule of evidence in NSW criminal proceedings. According to section 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), evidence is considered relevant if it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue, either directly or indirectly. In other words, evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a fact that is important to determining the outcome of the case.

Defining relevance in the context of criminal proceedings

In criminal trials, relevance is determined by examining the elements of the offence that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, in an assault case, relevant evidence might include testimony about who committed the alleged assault, whether the complainant consented to the physical contact and the nature and extent of any injuries sustained.

The definition of relevance in the Evidence Act is broad, encompassing evidence that may explain the relationship between the parties, provide context for the alleged offence, or go to the credibility of a witness. The key question is whether the evidence could rationally influence the fact-finder’s assessment of the probability of a fact in issue.

The test for relevance in NSW courts

When determining whether evidence is relevant, the court must assess whether it is capable of rationally affecting the probability of a fact in issue, assuming the evidence is accepted. This assessment does not involve weighing the evidence or considering its credibility; rather, it focuses on the logical connection between the evidence and the fact in issue.

In some cases, the relevance of evidence may be unclear at first. Under section 57 of the Evidence Act, the court may provisionally admit evidence if its relevance depends on a finding that is yet to be made. This allows the court to consider the evidence in the context of the case as a whole before making a final determination on its relevance.

It is important to note that even if the evidence is relevant, it may still be inadmissible for other reasons, such as if it is hearsay, opinion evidence, or improperly obtained. The rules of evidence strike a balance between ensuring that all relevant information is considered and protecting the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

Hearsay rule and its exceptions

The hearsay rule, outlined in section 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), states that evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that the person intended to assert by the representation. In other words, a witness cannot provide evidence about what someone else said or wrote to prove that the content of that statement is true.

However, there are several exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow certain types of hearsay evidence to be admitted. These exceptions include:

• Admissions made by a party to the proceedings (section 81)
• Representations about a person’s health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge, or state of mind (section 66A)
• Business records (section 69)
• Telecommunications (section 71)
• Representations in documents recording a criminal act (section 65(2))

If hearsay evidence falls within one of these exceptions and is considered relevant and reliable, it may be admitted into evidence.

Opinion evidence and expert testimony

Opinion evidence is generally not admissible in court, as witnesses are typically required to testify about facts rather than their opinions or conclusions drawn from those facts. However, section 76 of the Evidence Act allows for expert opinion evidence to be admitted if the witness has specialised knowledge based on their training, study, or experience, and their opinion is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge.

For expert testimony to be admissible, the court must be satisfied that:

• The witness has the requisite level of specialised knowledge
• The opinion is based on specialised knowledge
• The opinion is relevant to a fact in issue in the proceedings

Expert witnesses are subject to cross-examination to test the basis and reliability of their opinions. The court must also consider the potential for expert evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, misleading, or confusing under section 135 of the Evidence Act.

Tendency and coincidence evidence

Tendency evidence is evidence of a person’s character, reputation, or conduct used to prove that they have a tendency to act or think in a particular way. Coincidence evidence is evidence that a person did a particular act or had a particular state of mind on the basis that it is improbable that two or more related events occurred coincidentally. Both types of evidence are generally not admissible under sections 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act.

However, tendency or coincidence evidence may be admitted if:

• Reasonable notice is given to the other party
• The court thinks the evidence will have significant probative value that substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant

In determining the probative value of tendency or coincidence evidence, the court must consider factors such as the strength of the evidence, the nature and extent of the tendency or similarities, and whether there are alternative explanations for the events.

These key rules of evidence admissibility in NSW criminal trials aim to strike a balance between ensuring relevant and reliable evidence is presented to the court, while also protecting the rights of the accused and minimising the risk of unfair prejudice. Understanding and applying these rules is essential for legal practitioners involved in criminal proceedings in New South Wales.

Exclusionary Rules and Judicial Discretion in New South Wales

Illegally or improperly obtained evidence

In NSW criminal proceedings, evidence that has been obtained illegally or improperly may be excluded by the court. This exclusionary rule is designed to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) provides that evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in such a manner. In determining whether to admit the evidence, the court must consider factors such as:

• The probative value of the evidence
• The importance of the evidence in the proceeding
• The nature of the relevant offence, cause of action or defence, and the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding
• The gravity of the impropriety or contravention
• Whether the impropriety or contravention was deliberate or reckless
• Whether any other proceeding has been or is likely to be taken in relation to the impropriety or contravention
• The difficulty of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of an Australian law

For example, if police conducted an unlawful search of an accused’s home and found incriminating evidence, the court would need to weigh these factors in deciding whether to admit the evidence despite the impropriety in obtaining it. The more serious the offence and the more probative the evidence, the more likely it may be admitted even if improperly obtained.

Prejudicial evidence

Judges also have discretion under section 137 of the Evidence Act to refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. This allows judges to exclude evidence that, while relevant, may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the jury.

Prejudicial evidence is evidence that may cause the jury to make a decision based on something other than the facts in issue. It commonly arises with evidence of an accused’s prior criminal history or bad character. While this evidence may have some relevance, there is a risk the jury will place too much weight on it and convict the accused based on their history rather than the evidence relating to the actual offence charged.

When assessing prejudicial evidence, the court will consider:

• The strength of the evidence and its ability to prove a fact in issue (probative value)
• The risk of the evidence arousing in the jury an irrational, emotional response or prejudice against the accused
• The risk of the evidence being misused or given too much weight by the jury
• Whether limiting instructions to the jury could mitigate any prejudicial effect

If the prejudicial effect of the evidence exceeds its probative value, the judge should exclude it to ensure a fair trial. This involves a careful balancing exercise in each case.

In summary, the exclusionary rules and judicial discretion to exclude illegally obtained or unfairly prejudicial evidence are important safeguards in NSW criminal trials. They help ensure the accused receives a fair trial based on properly obtained, relevant and unbiased evidence. The court must carefully weigh the competing considerations in determining the admissibility of controversial evidence.

Privilege and Self-Incrimination

Client legal privilege

Client legal privilege, also known as legal professional privilege, protects communications between lawyers and their clients from disclosure in legal proceedings. This privilege is a fundamental principle of the legal system, designed to ensure that clients can speak freely and frankly with their lawyers without fear that their communications will be used against them.

In NSW criminal trials, client legal privilege applies to confidential communications made for the dominant purpose of providing or receiving legal advice or for use in existing or anticipated legal proceedings. This includes communications between a client and their lawyer, as well as communications between lawyers acting for the client.

The rationale behind client legal privilege is that it promotes the administration of justice by encouraging full and frank disclosure between clients and their legal representatives. This allows lawyers to provide informed advice and effectively represent their client’s interests.

However, there are some exceptions to client legal privilege. For example, the privilege may be lost if the communication is made in furtherance of a crime or fraud, or if the client waives the privilege by disclosing the communication to a third party.

Privilege against self-incrimination

The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental principle of the common law that protects individuals from being compelled to provide information that may incriminate them in criminal proceedings. This privilege is closely related to the right to silence and the presumption of innocence.

In NSW criminal trials, the privilege against self-incrimination means that an accused person cannot be compelled to provide evidence that may tend to prove their guilt. This includes the right to remain silent during police questioning and the right not to testify at trial.

The rationale behind this privilege is that it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused should not be required to assist in their own conviction. It also serves to protect individuals from improper questioning techniques and coercion.

However, there are some limitations to the privilege against self-incrimination. For example, if an accused person chooses to testify in their own defence, they may be cross-examined by the prosecution and cannot selectively invoke the privilege to avoid answering certain questions.

Additionally, in some circumstances, legislation may abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination, requiring individuals to provide information or documents even if they may be incriminating. In such cases, the legislation often provides some form of immunity from the use of that information in criminal proceedings against the individual.

In conclusion, client legal privilege and the privilege against self-incrimination are important safeguards in the NSW criminal justice system, ensuring that accused persons have the right to communicate freely with their legal representatives and are not compelled to incriminate themselves. While these privileges are subject to some limitations, they play a crucial role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of criminal trials.

Procedural Considerations for Evidence Admissibility

Pre-trial disclosure and case management

In NSW criminal trials, both the prosecution and defence are required to disclose certain evidence before the trial begins. This pre-trial disclosure process is crucial for ensuring a fair trial and avoiding unnecessary delays.

The prosecution has a duty to provide the defence with all relevant evidence, including both inculpatory and exculpatory material. This allows the defence to thoroughly prepare their case and respond to the allegations against the accused. The prosecution must disclose:

• The brief of evidence, which includes witness statements, police reports, and other key documents
• Expert witness reports and statements
• Any material that may assist the defence case or undermine the prosecution case

The defence, while not subject to the same broad disclosure obligations as the prosecution, must still disclose certain types of evidence, such as:

• Alibi evidence, if the accused intends to rely on an alibi defence
• Expert witness reports, if the defence intends to call expert testimony
• Any documents or exhibits the defence intends to use at trial

Pre-trial case management hearings are held to ensure that disclosure obligations are met and to resolve any issues that may arise. These hearings also provide an opportunity for the court to set timelines for the exchange of evidence and to make orders regarding the conduct of the trial.

Effective pre-trial disclosure and case management are essential for promoting the efficient administration of justice and protecting the rights of the accused. By ensuring that all parties have access to relevant evidence and are prepared for trial, the court can help to minimise delays and ensure that the trial proceeds fairly and expeditiously.

Voir dire hearings

Voir dire hearings are a critical procedural tool for determining the admissibility of contested evidence in NSW criminal trials. These hearings, which take place outside the presence of the jury, allow the court to consider the legal arguments for and against the admission of particular pieces of evidence.

During a voir dire hearing, the party seeking to introduce the contested evidence must establish its admissibility under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and any relevant common law principles. The opposing party may challenge the evidence on various grounds, such as relevance, hearsay, opinion, or privilege.

The judge will hear arguments from both sides and may also receive testimony from witnesses to assess the evidence’s admissibility. In deciding whether to admit the evidence, the judge must consider factors such as:

• The relevance of the evidence to the issues in dispute
• The reliability and probative value of the evidence
• The potential for the evidence to be unfairly prejudicial, misleading, or confusing
• Any applicable exclusionary rules or discretionary considerations under the Evidence Act

If the judge determines that the evidence is admissible, it may be presented to the jury during the trial. If the evidence is ruled inadmissible, it will be excluded, and the jury will not be made aware of its existence.

Voir dire hearings serve an important function in safeguarding the fairness of criminal trials by ensuring that only legally admissible evidence is put before the jury. By filtering out unreliable, prejudicial, or otherwise improper evidence, these hearings help to maintain the integrity of the fact-finding process and protect the rights of the accused.

Conclusion

Evidence admissibility plays a crucial role in ensuring fair trials and protecting the rights of the accused in NSW criminal proceedings. The rules of evidence, primarily outlined in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), regulate what evidence can be presented in court and how it can be used to prove or disprove the elements of an offence.

By setting clear standards for relevance, reliability, and fairness, the rules of evidence help to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. They ensure that convictions are based on properly obtained and legally admissible evidence, minimising the risk of wrongful convictions and upholding the fundamental principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Need answers? Our legal team is ready to assist—contact us now.

Frequently Asked Questions