Evidence
Uniform Evidence Acts (Cth, NSW, Vic, Tas, ACT, NT) plus common-law states. Hearsay, opinion, character, tendency, coincidence.
Dominant casebooks
- Cross on Evidence — J D Heydon · LexisNexis (13th)dominant
Briefed authorities
- Bauer v The Queen Bauer v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 56
Tendency in single-complainant sexual offences — joint trial admissibility.
- Hughes v The Queen Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338
Tendency in sexual offences — striking similarity not always required.
- IMM v The Queen IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300
Tendency / coincidence evidence — significant probative value standard.
- Honeysett v The Queen Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122
Specialised knowledge — anatomical comparison evidence excluded under s 79.
- Lithgow City Council v Jackson Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352
Opinion evidence — the rule against opinion is not relaxed for ambulance officers.
- Em v The Queen Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67
Covert recordings of suspect — admissibility under Evidence Act ss 138, 139.
- Smith v The Queen Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
Identification — police identification of accused from CCTV not relevant.
- R v Swaffield R v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159
Confessions — voluntariness, reliability, fairness, public-policy discretion.
- Bunning v Cross Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence — public-interest balancing.
Briefs follow the Australian Guide to Legal Citation 4th ed. Source judgments via AustLII. Browse the full AU case library for every briefed authority across Priestley 11.