#lawskool

[financial-adviser-exam]

[lawskoolau]

Evidence Law Notes Australia | Lawskool

Here are some basic notes on evidence law in Australia:

The law of evidence in Australia is primarily governed by the uniform Evidence Acts. These Acts apply in all states and territories of Australia, except for Victoria.

The purpose of the law of evidence is to determine the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings, and to regulate the way in which evidence is presented.

Evidence can be either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact in issue, while circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to be drawn before it can be used to prove a fact in issue.

In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant to the issues in the case. Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to prove or disprove a fact in issue.

Evidence can be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. This means that evidence may not be admitted if it is likely to unfairly influence the decision-maker.

Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible, but there are exceptions to this rule. Hearsay evidence is evidence of a statement made by a person who is not a witness in the proceedings, and is being offered to prove the truth of the statement.

Evidence obtained improperly or illegally is generally not admissible. This includes evidence obtained through searches, interrogations or surveillance that breaches a person's rights.

The burden of proof in criminal cases rests with the prosecution, who must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the standard of proof is lower, and the plaintiff must prove their case on the balance of probabilities.

These are just some basic notes on evidence law in Australia. If you need more detailed information or specific guidance on this topic, it is recommended that you seek the advice of a qualified legal professional.

[legallyginger]

“so now let’s get on to the first of today’s questions…”  it’s 3.43 and our class finishes at 4 and we’re just starting this week’s questions. please let this topic not be in the final. 

[legallyginger]

“this week’s readings were quite difficult… did you find it difficult? i found it hard to get my head around when I was reading it over, so i didn’t actually read all of it” - lecturer. YOU WROTE IT. YOU WROTE THE TEXTBOOK. YOU DONT GET TO COMPLAIN THAT IT’S HARD, YOU MADE IT. I get to complain, because my reasonable expectation that my lecturer would write a book that made sense has been disappointed. 

[legallyginger]

so often both legislation and case law make me really wonder what is wrong with people.  like, if you all just did your actual job instead of pretending you had more power than you actually do, corporations legislation would be simple.  and if people were just not completely ridiculous, there would be a heck of a lot less case law for torts.  and crim - how on earth do enough people commit such weird and seemingly niche crimes that we have that many rules. and international law… it seems so fun and quirky and then you realise these are actual people and suddenly things like m47 stop being clever and kind of funny.  and ethics… maybe we should have let some non-law people teach that one. it’s like law school wasn’t content to just throw a bunch of type A overachievers together for 3-5 years and tell them to compete like mad, they also had to make you spend that time reading about people who are even worse, just to make sure you lose any faith in humanity/whatever shards of your soul survived this far.