Generally, there needs to be a logical connection between the issues of the case before the court and the evidence that stands to be admitted in order for it to be relevant. This logical relevance is a matter of common sense, but is easily complicated by any attempt to define it in greater detail. We will give you two examples, one involving facts that are clearly highly relevant and the other referring to facts that are clearly irrelevant.
The accused is charged with shoplifting. The facts that the owner of the shop saw her taking an item from a shelf, hiding it under her sweater, walking out of the shop without paying for the item and being caught outside the shop in possession of an item with the shop's price tag on it, are all clearly relevant to the question whether the accused stole that particular item.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- Discussion classes notes Strategic answering of questions in an exam
- Similar Fact Evidence
- Previous Consistent Statement
- Expert Evidence/Opinion Evidence
- Confessions
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
The objective of this text is to provide guidance on strategically answering questions in an exam setting, specifically focusing on legal evidence and admissibility. It aims to equip students with the knowledge and skills to effectively analyze and address complex legal issues.
- Relevance of evidence
- Admissibility of similar fact evidence
- Rules surrounding previous consistent statements
- Requirements for expert evidence
- The nature and admissibility of confessions
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
Introduction: This introductory section defines relevance in legal contexts, emphasizing the logical connection between evidence and the issues before the court. It provides contrasting examples of highly relevant and irrelevant facts to illustrate the concept, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of evidence admissibility in subsequent chapters.
Discussion classes notes Strategic answering of questions in an exam: This chapter acts as a methodological guide for answering legal exam questions. It emphasizes the importance of clearly identifying the central issue, providing definitions, stating general rules and exceptions, discussing relevant case law and legislation, and offering a well-reasoned conclusion.
Similar Fact Evidence: This chapter defines similar fact evidence as evidence of past acts similar to the fact in issue, aiming to show a pattern of behavior. It outlines the requirements for admissibility, including a logical connection to the fact in issue, sufficient probative value, and the ability to generate reasonable inferences. Key cases like Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales and R v Davies are discussed to illustrate the principles and limitations of admissibility.
Previous Consistent Statement: This section delves into the rules governing previous consistent statements. It establishes that such statements are generally inadmissible due to irrelevance, but outlines exceptions, including prior identification, rebuttal of fabrication allegations, and complaints in sexual assault cases. Cases such as S v Cornick, S v Moti, and S v Hammond are cited to illuminate these exceptions and the relevant legal principles. The chapter also explores the legal implications of delays in reporting sexual offenses and the criteria for assessing the admissibility of complaints made after questioning.
Expert Evidence/Opinion Evidence: This chapter explains the admissibility of expert evidence based on its ability to assist the court, referencing the Vilbro rule. It details the requirements for admissibility: establishing the expert's qualifications, providing grounds for the opinion, and enabling the court to compare the expert's findings with other evidence. The chapter notes that the court is not bound by expert opinion and discusses the implications of an expert relying on textbooks rather than personal knowledge.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Relevance, admissibility, evidence, similar fact evidence, previous consistent statement, expert evidence, confession, legal procedure, case law, probative value, sexual offences, credibility.
Frequently Asked Questions: Strategic Answering of Questions in an Exam (Legal Evidence and Admissibility)
What topics are covered in this text?
This text provides a comprehensive guide to strategically answering exam questions on legal evidence and admissibility. It covers key areas including the relevance of evidence, the admissibility of similar fact evidence, rules surrounding previous consistent statements, requirements for expert evidence, and the nature and admissibility of confessions. The text includes an introduction defining relevance, a methodological guide for answering exam questions, and detailed chapter summaries for each topic.
What is the objective of this text?
The main objective is to equip students with the knowledge and skills to effectively analyze and answer complex legal questions in an exam setting. It aims to provide guidance on strategically structuring answers, including identifying central issues, defining key terms, stating rules and exceptions, and referencing relevant case law and legislation.
What are the key themes explored in the text?
The key themes revolve around the admissibility of different types of evidence. This includes examining the conditions under which similar fact evidence, previous consistent statements, and expert opinions are admissible in court. The text also explores the specific rules and exceptions related to confessions and the importance of understanding the concept of relevance in legal contexts.
How does the text explain the admissibility of similar fact evidence?
The text defines similar fact evidence as evidence of past acts similar to the fact in issue, used to show a pattern of behavior. It outlines the requirements for admissibility, such as a logical connection to the fact in issue, sufficient probative value, and the ability to generate reasonable inferences. Key cases like Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales and R v Davies are used to illustrate the principles and limitations.
What are the rules regarding previous consistent statements?
The text explains that previous consistent statements are generally inadmissible due to irrelevance. However, it outlines exceptions, including prior identification, rebuttal of fabrication allegations, and complaints in sexual assault cases. Cases like S v Cornick, S v Moti, and S v Hammond are used to illustrate these exceptions and their application. The text also discusses the legal implications of delays in reporting sexual offenses.
What are the requirements for admissible expert evidence?
The text details the admissibility of expert evidence based on its ability to assist the court (the Vilbro rule). Requirements include establishing the expert's qualifications, providing grounds for the opinion, and allowing the court to compare the expert's findings with other evidence. The text emphasizes that courts are not bound by expert opinions and discusses the implications of experts relying on textbooks instead of personal knowledge.
What is the importance of understanding relevance in legal contexts?
The introductory section emphasizes the crucial role of relevance in legal proceedings. It highlights the logical connection required between evidence and the issues before the court, using contrasting examples to illustrate the difference between highly relevant and irrelevant facts. This sets the stage for understanding the admissibility of evidence in later chapters.
What is the methodology suggested for answering legal exam questions?
The text provides a methodological guide emphasizing the importance of clearly identifying the central issue, providing definitions, stating general rules and exceptions, discussing relevant case law and legislation, and presenting a well-reasoned conclusion. This structured approach is crucial for effectively addressing complex legal problems in exam settings.
What keywords are associated with this text?
Keywords include: Relevance, admissibility, evidence, similar fact evidence, previous consistent statement, expert evidence, confession, legal procedure, case law, probative value, sexual offences, credibility.
- Quote paper
- Zwivhuya Rasivhaga (Author), 2018, How to answer questions in an exam, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/451629
