Evidence & Proof

Master admissibility under the Evidence Act.

Evidence rewards method. Students who do well run each piece of evidence through the Uniform Evidence Act in a set order, so admissibility becomes a process rather than a guess. That method is the core of the subject, and it can be learned.

The challenge

Where students get stuck

Each piece of evidence must clear a sequence, and students usually lose marks by skipping a step under time pressure. Relevance comes first, then the exclusionary rules of hearsay, opinion, tendency and coincidence, and credibility, and then the discretions in sections 135, 137 and 138. Hearsay accounts for the most lost marks. This is because students apply its exceptions loosely. The section 137 balance of probative value against unfair prejudice is a balancing exercise that many students assert rather than structure.

How the method applies here

Admissibility is worked item by item. For each piece of evidence, state the rule and its section, apply it to that evidence, and conclude before moving on. Hearsay, tendency and coincidence, and the section 137 discretion decide most of the marks. The aim is an answer anchored to the Act and easy for an examiner to follow.

The method

One method, every problem

Four steps run every argument: name the issue, state the rule, apply it to the facts, conclude. Almost every legal rule takes one of six shapes. Any of these six shapes may carry a twist. Learn the six shapes and the twist →

Full build in development. This subject will follow the complete pattern: module guides and a practice bank with Pass and H1 model answers and examiner's comments.
See it finished. Seven subjects are complete end to end, from Remedies and Criminal Law to Constitutional Law and Equity & Trusts.
More on the way. New subjects and practice banks appear on the subjects list as they land.

Common questions

Evidence & Proof: common questions

Which Evidence Act do these pages use?

The uniform Evidence Act in Victoria and the Commonwealth: the Evidence Act 2008 and the Evidence Act 1995. Check your own jurisdiction if it differs.

Hearsay is my weak point. Will it be covered?

Yes. Hearsay and its exceptions get their own module.

How do I structure an admissibility answer?

Section by section, one item of evidence at a time: state the rule, apply it to that evidence, conclude, then move on.

Get on top of Evidence.

I am building the guides and worked problems for this subject and will announce them in the Publication as they land.