Relevance


 * __ Relevance __**
 * All relevant evidence is prima facie admissible unless it is excluded by a rule of evidence – __Thayer__
 * Does the evidence offered render the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence? __McCormick__
 * ** Motive ** makes it more likely that the evidence is relevant.


 * __ Facts in Issue __**
 * ‘all those facts which the P must prove in order to succeed, together with any further facts that the D must prove in order to establish a defence’.
 * There must be a connection between the item of evidence and the facts in issue.


 * __ Relevant Facts tend to prove or disprove the facts in issue __**

Evidence is directly relevant to a fact if is affects the probable existence or non-existence of that fact.
 * Directly Relevant facts **

Evidence is indirectly relevant if it bears upon the probative value of the evidence, which is itself directly relevant. E.g. if the witness is short-sighted.
 * Indirectly Relevant Facts **


 * Need to consider: **

__ Probative Value of the Evidence __
 * The extent to which the evidence could __rationally__ affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.
 * Rational means reasonable.

__ Prejudicial Effect of the Evidence __
 * Where the jury gives additional weight to facts for irrational reasons.
 * Pfennig ** – ** D was convicted on the rational that there was a low chance of another person with sexual interest in boys being at the scene at the time in which the V went missing. The body was never found, but D was later convicted of abducting another young boy in similar circumstances.
 * Smith v R – the jury’s assessment of video footage was seen as not have been affected by police officer’s testimony and identification of the D.

** General Discretion to Exclude Evidence ** The court may __refuse__ to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might –
 * s.135 ** –
 * 1) be unfairly prejudicial to a party;
 * 2) be misleading or confusing; or
 * 3) cause or result in undue waste of time

__ Note: __ The court must say why the evidence is inadmissible, and this statement can be appealed.

** General Discretion to Limit Use of Evidence ** the court may __limit__ the use to be made of evidence if there is a danger that a particular use of the evidence might –
 * s.136 ** –
 * 1) be unfairly prejudicial to a party; or
 * 2) be misleading or confusing

** Exclusion of Prejudicial evidence in a criminal proceeding ** // Christie Discretion // – In a __criminal proceeding,__ the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
 * s.137 ** –


 * Test of Relevance **
 * R v Stephenson – is the evidence insufficiently relevant or too remote to the extent that the logical connection between the fact and the issue to be determined should be inadmissible?


 * Logical Relevance **
 * ** McCormick: **// Does the evidence tend to prove or disprove the fact in issue? //

** Definition of Relevance ** (1) The evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could __rationally__ affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding.
 * s.55 ** –

(2) In particular, evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates to –
 * (a) the credibility of a witness; or
 * (b) the admissibility of other evidence; or
 * (c) a failure to adduce evidence

Smith v R **// : //**
 * ‘The fact that someone else has reached a conclusion about the identity of the accused and the person in the picture does not provide any logical basis for affecting the jury’s assessment of the probability of the existence of that fact when the conclusion is based only on material that is not different in any substantial way from what is available to the jury’.

** Relevant Evidence to be Admissible ** (1) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is admissible in the proceeding.
 * s.56 ** –

(2) Evidence that is not relevant in the proceeding is not admissible.

__ Direct Evidence __
 * Where the only inference drawn by the court is as to the accuracy of its own sensations or those of the witnesses.
 * E.g. D makes an admission – ‘hit the V, but didn’t mean to kill her’.

__ Circumstantial Evidence __
 * Evidence which does not prove the fact in issue unless and until the court draws an inference from the relevant circumstantial evidence to the facts in issue.
 * E.g. //Chamberlain// – ‘blood’ evidence found in the boot of the car. HC said the conviction could stand regardless of the blood evidence.
 * E.g. evidence of motive, P still needs to show Ds intentions are homicidal.
 * Shepherd v R – it is sufficient if the jury are satisfied, on the whole of the evidence, that there is no reasonable explanation consistent with innocence. However, some individual pieces of evidence may be so crucial that the jury should not convict unless satisfied of its existence beyond reasonable doubt.

__ Possible Errors: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence __
 * Inaccurate observation on the part of the witness;
 * Inaccurate report on the part of the witness; (e.g. identification)
 * Witness may deliberately misrepresent what he or she saw
 * The witness’ testimony may be misunderstood (e.g. expert evidence); and
 * Erroneous inference **(Circumstantial evidence only)**

__ Erroneous inference __
 * Can be counteracted with as much circumstantial evidence as possible.
 * Plomp v R – if an issue is to be proved by circumstantial evidence, facts subsidiary to or connected with the main fact must be established from which the conclusion follows as a rational inference. In the inculpation of an accused person the evidentiary circumstances must bear no other reasonable explanation’.