Rules of Evidence

Rules of Evidence

Introduction

Tim is charged for selling and supplying drugs. In a telephone message to our firm he admits to planting crops. He has a criminal record for planting marijuana crops four times in the past 10 years. There is substantial evidence available to the prosecution which places him at the scene of the crime. He has made a statement to the Police. He was seen running away from the location, in his statement he said to the Police that he had cultivated the drugs found in his house for recreational use. Several issues arise regarding the relevance and admissibility of this evidence, as well as the competence and compellability of witnesses. The general rule is that if evidence is relevant it is admissible and that all witnesses are competent and compellable. These rules are subject to exclusionary rules. This matter will be heard under the West Australian Evidence Act 1906 (the Act).

Executive Summary

The prosecution has substantial evidence to link Tim to the incident. There are however, several issues that arise regarding the inadmissibility of some of the evidence. This is due to the following main issues: The first of hearsay. The statement made by the man on the corner would be considered hearsay. Secondly the prosecution may have obtained some of the evidence without a warrant to enter his house or in another illegal manner; it will therefore be within the judge's discretion whether this evidence is inadmissible. Thirdly, identification evidence is often unreliable due to personal opinion, however the statements regarding the identity of Tim will he relevant and admissible but will carry a low probative weight. Finally the admissibility of the statement made by Tim is open to challenge.

Tim's admission on the message he left will not be admissible in court due to lawyer client privilege. Expert evidence regarding the origin of the crop will be admissible as will similar fact evidence. Evidence in relation to the bias of witnesses, unless proven, would be admissible. Most of the witnesses would be compellable and competent.

We need more information to prepare a defence, such as a copy of Tim's statement, other witness statements and the prosecution's brief. I will also look at some ethical issues that arise in the matter.

Discussion

Hearsay

The common law rule against hearsay is that it prohibits witnesses in court repeating statements made by others in order to establish the truth of those statements (Waight v Williams). In R v Ratten it was found that if such a statement were to be proven by other means then the evidence which is considered hearsay would be admissible. The statement made by the man on the corner saying that Tim told him he was planting the crop would be considered hearsay. This is due to the fact that by saying that it will in itself attempt to validate Tim's words. There is no immediate way to prove that Tim actually said it. Tim in any event is ambivalent if he said ...