DOCSLIB.ORG

Evidence Law Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evidence Law Summary EVIDENCE LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL NEW ZEALAND EVIDENCE LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE AND PRELIMINARY ISSUES 6 Source of evidence law and application 6 Purpose of the act 7 ADMISSIBILITY RULES, PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY 8 GENERAL STRUCTURE OF ENQUIRY AS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF 8 EVIDENCE RELEVANCE 9 Relevance versus weight 9 GENERAL EXCLUSION 10 Unfair Prejudice 10 Needlessly prolong the proceeding 11 THE HEARSAY RULE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS 12 A hearsay statement 13 The exclusionary rule 14 General admissibility of hearsay statements 14 Statutory exceptions to hearsay statements 16 OPINION EVIDENCE 18 Non-expert opinions 18 Expert opinion evidence 19 PREVIOUS CONSISTENT STATEMENT 23 Exceptions to the rule 23 VERACITY 25 Definition 26 lawskool.co.nz © EVIDENCE LAW The veracity rule 26 The veracity of a Defendant in criminal proceedings 27 PROPENSITY EVIDENCE 28 Propensity evidence 28 Propensity rules 28 Defendants in criminal proceedings 29 Co-defendants in criminal proceedings 32 Sexual cases 32 Veracity versus propensity 33 PRIVILEGE 34 Definitions and interpretation 34 Legal effect of privilege 34 Section 54: Legal advice privilege 35 Section 56L Litigation privilege 36 Waiver of privilege 36 Powers of judge to disallow privilege 38 TRIAL PROCESS 40 WITNESSES 40 Eligibility and compellability 40 Exception 40 QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES 42 DIRECT EXAMINATION 42 Unacceptable questions 42 Leading questions 42 Refreshing memory 43 CROSS-EXAMINATION 43 lawskool.co.nz © EVIDENCE LAW Cross-examination duties 43 Form of questions 45 Impeaching own witness 45 Previous inconsistent statements 46 Judicial notice 47 CASES Abadom [1983] 1 All ER 364..................................................................................................20 Accused [1992] 1 NZLR 257..................................................................................................10 Air Chathams Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (2003) 16 PRNZ 676...............21 Attorney-General v Otahuhu District Court [2001] 3 NZLR 740.............................................39 Auckland City Council v Hapimana [1976] 1 NZLR 731........................................................47 B v Auckland District Law Society [2004] 1 NZLR 326..........................................................37 Bete Fog Nozzle Inc v Delavan Ltd (HC, Auckland CIV 2008-404-169, 18 June 2008)........37 Boardman v DPP [1975] 3 All ER 887...................................................................................30 Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 QB 759..........................................................................................35 Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Genesis Power Ltd (No 7) [2007] 3 NZLR 794...............................36 Cropp v Judicial Committee [2008] 3NZLR 774.....................................................................47 Gemini Personnel Ltd v Morgan & Banks Ltd [2001] 1 NZLR 672.........................................38 Guardian Royal Exchange Co v Stuart [1985] 1 NZLR 596...................................................36 Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149......................................................................................47 ISTIL Group Inc v Zahoor [2003] 2 All ER 252.......................................................................37 Jobe (No 1) (High Court, Nelson T7/91, 8 July 1991)............................................................11 Kapi v Ministry of Transport (1991) 8 CRNZ 49.....................................................................47 Lord Ashburton v Pape [1913] 2 Ch 469................................................................................35 M v R [2008] NZSC 108.........................................................................................................33 National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd, The Ikarian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68.........................................................................................................21 Pera Te Hikumata v Tucker (1894) 12 NZLR 368.................................................................47 Police v Kohler [1993] 3 NZLR 129........................................................................................39 Porter v Police (HC, Wellington, M258-85, 1 August 1985)...................................................19 Public Transport Authority v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (2007) 242 ALR 181...................35 lawskool.co.nz © EVIDENCE LAW R v Accused [1992] 2 NZLR 187............................................................................................30 R v B [1987] 1 NZLR 362.......................................................................................................19 R v Bain (CA 312/2008, 24 December 2008); [2008] NZCA 585...........................................38 R v Baker [1989] 1 NZLR 738..........................................................................................11, 21 R v Barlien [2009] 1 NZLR 170..............................................................................................23 R v Brasier (1779) 1 Leach 199.............................................................................................40 R v Brokenshire (CA 418/04, 23 June 2005).........................................................................18 R v During [1973] 1 NZLR 366...............................................................................................10 R v Eade (2002) 19 CRNZ 470..............................................................................................20 R v Kincaid [1991] 2 NZLR 1..................................................................................................17 R v Harbour [1995] 1 NZLR 440............................................................................................21 R v Healy [2007] 3 NZLR 850..........................................................................................30, 32 R v Herewini (15/8/07, HC Rotorua) CRI 2006-063-3151.......................................................9 R v Holtz [2003] 1 NZLR 667...........................................................................................31, 33 R v Hovell [1986] 1 NZLR 500...............................................................................................16 R v Howe [1982] 1 NZLR 618................................................................................................10 R v King [2007] 2 NZLR 137..................................................................................................38 R v Lahina [2008] NZCA 251.................................................................................................27 R v Makoare [2001] 1 NZLR 318...........................................................................................20 R v McIntosh (1991) 8 CRNZ 514..........................................................................................31 R v Mohan [1994] 2 SCR 9....................................................................................................21 R v O’Hagan [2009] 1 NZLR 490...........................................................................................33 R v Roberts [1942] 1 All ER 187, 191....................................................................................23 R v S [2008] NZCA 152..........................................................................................................24 R v Scarrott [1978] 1 All ER 672............................................................................................30 R v Shortland [2007] NZCA 37...............................................................................................15 R v Smith (1915) 11 Cr App R 229........................................................................................29 R v Smith [1989] 3 NZLR 405 ...............................................................................................23 R v Smith [2007] NZCA 400 .....................……………………………………………..................9 R v Straffen [1952] 2 All ER 657............................................................................................30 R v Taea [2007] NZCA 472....................................................................................................31 R v Toka (1994) 11 CRNZ 601..............................................................................................18 R v Whitehad (1886) LR 1 CCR 33........................................................................................40 Ratten v R [1971] 3 All ER 801 (PC)......................................................................................13 Russell & Somers Ltd v Wellington Harbour Board [1977] 2 NZLR 158................................13 Shah v Police [2006] 2 NZLR 425..........................................................................................18 Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650..............................................................................................18 lawskool.co.nz © EVIDENCE LAW Solosky v R (1979) 105 DLR (3d) 745...................................................................................35 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 (PC)..................................................13 lawskool.co.nz © EVIDENCE LAW The nature of evidence and preliminary issues The laws of evidence consist of the rules and principles applied by courts in the process of fact-finding at a trial. The evidence of a fact that tends to prove an inference is called admissible evidence. There are several exclusionary rules, under which
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Has the Evidence Act Been a Successful Codification? Is It a True Code?
    Sarah Croxford Has the Evidence Act Been a Successful Codification? Is it a True Code? LLM RESEARCH PAPER LAWS 546: LEGISLATION FACULTY OF LAW 2015 II Sarah Croxford 300223766 Contents Abstract I Has the Evidence Act been a Successful Codification? Is it a True Code? A Introduction II Why the Law Change? A The Law was too Complex B Public Opinion III The Actions of the Law Commission IV What is the definition of a code? A Origin B Modern interpretation C Codification in Australia D Criminal Codification in the United Kingdom E The New Zealand Law Commissions Definition V What is the function of a code? What are its qualities? A A Fresh Start B Purpose and Principles C Gapless D Efficient E Legitimacy of Criminal Law F Society G But why then, are some People Against Codification? VI Jurisdictions A Australia B Canada C America D England E New Zealand II III Sarah Croxford 300223766 VII An analysis of the Evidence Act 2006 A Section 10 Interpretation – Are the Values of a Code Accomplished? 1 Section 10(1)(a) 2 Section 10(1)(b) 3 Section 10(1)(c) 4 The Law Commissions commentary B Purpose of the Act – Does this Achieve the Values and Advantages of a Code? 1 Section 6(b) 2 Section 6(c) 3 Section 6(e) 4 Section 6 (f) C Section 7 Relevance Principle – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code? D Section 8 Probative Value Principle – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code? E Section 12 Gapless – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code 1 Inclusion of the Common Law 2 Future Developments of Electronic Evidence F Section 5 Inconsistencies G Section 202 Periodic Review – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code? H Size VIII Changes due to the reform – Do these Achieve the Values of a Code? A Propensity B Improperly Obtained Evidence IX By and large has the Act and Codification been worthwhile? III IV Sarah Croxford 300223766 Abstract This paper examines the Evidence Act 2006 to determine whether it has been a successful codification of the law of evidence in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • R V Horncastle and Others (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
    Michaelmas Term [2009] UKSC 14 On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Crim 964 JUDGMENT R v Horncastle and others (Appellants) (on appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division) before Lord Phillips, President Lady Hale Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Neuberger Lord Kerr Lord Judge JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 9 December 2009 Heard on 7, 8 and 9 July 2009 Appellants (Horncastle Appellants (Marquis and Respondent and Blackmore) Graham) Tim Owen QC Shaun Smith QC David Perry QC John Gibson James Beck Louis Mably Janet Reaney (Instructed by The (Instructed by The Johnson (Instructed by Crown Johnson Partnership Partnership Solicitors ) Prosecution Service) Solicitors ) LORD PHILLIPS, PRESIDENT This is a judgment with which all members of the court agree. Introduction 1. Each of the appellants has been convicted on indictment of a serious criminal offence. Each has had an appeal against conviction dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Each appeals on the ground that he did not receive a fair trial, contrary to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“article 6”) (“The Convention”). The appeal of each is based on the fact that there was placed before the jury the statement of a witness who was not called to give evidence. In each case the witness was the victim of the alleged offence. 2. Mr Horncastle and Mr Blackmore were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, with intent, to Mr Peter Rice. Mr Rice made a witness statement to the police about what had happened to him. He died before the trial of causes not attributable to the injuries that had been inflicted upon him.
    [Show full text]
  • “Go No Further Than the Words of the Section”: from the Evidence Act to the Comfort of the Common Law
    “GO NO FURTHER THAN THE WORDS OF THE SECTION”: FROM THE EVIDENCE ACT TO THE COMFORT OF THE COMMON LAW MEGAN A PATERSON A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand October 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor, Donna Buckingham. Your commitment and genuine dedication throughout the year have made writing this dissertation such a stimulating and enjoyable task. I am truly grateful for all your guidance. Thank you to Professor Richard Mahoney for your helpful suggestions and pragmatic approach. Thank you also to Professor Geoff Hall for your advice and enthusiasm. To my friends in law school, thank you for your encouragement and inspiration. It has been a pleasure to share this experience with such a talented group of people. To my flatmates, cheers for your support and for keeping me smiling. Finally, thank you to my family. To my incredible parents, Beth and Graham, words cannot express how grateful I am for your love, unwavering support, and encouragement. Thank you for always believing in me. To Ben, Luke and Jenna, thank you for your positivity and understanding. Title quote from: Messenger v Stanaway Real Estate Limited CIV-2012-404-7205, [2014] NZHC 2103 at [20] citing Body Corporate 191561 v Argent House Ltd (2008) 19 PRNZ 500 (HC) at [31]. ii CONTENTS Introduction: The Impetus for Inquiry .......................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Codification .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship of Contractual Remedies to Political and Social Status: a Preliminary Inquiry David S
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 1-1-1982 The Relationship of Contractual Remedies to Political and Social Status: A Preliminary Inquiry David S. Cohen Pace Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation David Cohen, The Relationship of Contractual Remedies to Political and Social Status: A Preliminary Inquiry, 32 U. Toronto L.J. 31 (1982), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/428/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. David Cohen* THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES TO POLITICAL AND SOCIAL STATUS: A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY? 'And you see', Trollope makes Archdeacon Grantley say, 'land gives so much more than rent. It gives position and influence and political power, to say nothing about the game." What things 'give' is the very heart of the law of property. And what agreements 'give' is equally at the heart of the law of contract. No legal system could hope to develop at all unless it established rules defining the remedies available to enforce agreements or, put another way, insisting that one 'gets what one has been promised.' However we choose to define the substance of consensual obligations, we must include a reference to enforceability.' An individual who has had his contractual expectations shattered and goes to law in order to obtain compensation or performance premises his claim on the destruction of his perceived wealth, represented by his personal expectation of profit created at the instant of agreement.3 Both parties stand to gain by the exchange through the enjoyment of their respective profits which did not exist prior to the bargain.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Lord Cooke in Reforming the Hearsay Rule
    143 GOING "STRAIGHT TO BASICS": THE ROLE OF LORD COOKE IN REFORMING THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY – FROM BAKER TO THE EVIDENCE ACT 2006 Elisabeth McDonald* In April of 1989, Cooke P, as he then was, proposed a test for the admissibility of oral hearsay (the fearful remarks of a woman later killed by her estranged husband) in a criminal trial. This common law admissibility test, focussing on the reliability of the statement (while implicitly acknowledging that the maker of the statement was not "available" to testify), was further developed in the Court of Appeal's decision in Bain (1996), and confirmed to have broad application in Manase (2001). The reliability and unavailability test has now become the admissibility test for hearsay evidence in the Evidence Act 2006. In this paper written in his honour, the author discusses the legacy of Lord Cooke in the 21st century liberalisation of the rule against hearsay. I INTRODUCTION In June of 1989 the Law Commission published Hearsay Evidence – an Options Paper Prepared for the Law Commission by an Advisory Committee on Evidence Law.1 As a consequence of this work, in August of the same year the Minister of Justice asked the Law Commission to make recommendations for the reform of the whole of the law of evidence. The purpose of the reference was "[t]o make the law of evidence as clear, simple and accessible as is practicable".2 This call for simplicity echoed the words of the then President of the Court of Appeal in R v Baker earlier in 1989:3 * Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
    [Show full text]
  • R V Aytach Hasan
    HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2004–05 [2005] UKHL 22 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Crim 191 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Regina v. Hasan (Respondent) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly Regina v. Z (2003) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) ON THURSDAY 17 MARCH 2005 The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Regina v. Hasan (Respondent) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly Regina v. Z (2003) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) [2005] UKHL 22 LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. This appeal by the Crown against the decision of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal (Rix LJ, Crane J and Judge Maddison: [2003] EWCA Crim 191, [2003] 1 WLR 1489, sub nom R v Z) raises two questions. The first concerns the meaning of “confession” for the purposes of section 76(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The second concerns the defence of duress. Anonymity 2. At trial in the Central Criminal Court, the name of the defendant Aytach Hasan (“the defendant”) and the names of the main participants in the proceedings were given in open court. But two of those participants (Frank Sullivan and Claire Taeger) were then awaiting trial and the trial judge, His Honour Judge Paget QC, properly made an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting the publication of their names or any information concerning them or their forthcoming trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearsay: a Definition That Works
    Hearsay: A Definition that Works Introduction The current editions of Cross on Evidence state the effect of the hearsay rule as follows: 'an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted'.' Although this definition works well for 'express assertions', it has two significant drawbacks. First, it attempts to deny that which is now undeniable: that the hearsay rule does extend to 'implied assertion^'.^ Secondly, it does not even * BA (WW), LLB (Hons) (Mon), BCL (Oxon), Lecturer, Law School, University of Melbourne. I am grateful to Cameron Abbott, Ian Freckelton, Terese Henning and Graham Roberts for their helpful comments on various drafts of this article; the usual disclaimers apply. 1 See C Tapper, Cross on Evidence (7th ed, Buttenvorths, 1990) p 42; D Byme and J Heydon, Cross on Evidence (4th Australian ed, Buttenvorths, 1991) p 46. 2 Tapper has admitted that the definition was deliberately drafted so as to exclude unintentional or implied assertions from the scope of the rule: see C Tapper, 'Hillmon Rediscovered and Lord St Leonards Resurrected' (1990) 106 LQR 441,452. For clear authority that the rule does extend to implied assertions, however, see, inter alia, Walton v R (1989) 166 CLR 283 at 292 per Mason CJ, and at 304 per Wilson, Dawson and Toohey JJ; R v Benz (1989) 168 CLR 110 at 118 per Mason CJ, at 133 per Dawson J, and at 143 per Gaudron and McHugh JJ; R v Kearley [I9921 2 AC 228 at 245 per Lord Bridge, at 255 per Lord Ackner, and at 264 per Lord Oliver; and Pollitt v R (1992) 174 CLR 558 at 620 per McHugh J.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    Preliminary Paper No 15 EVIDENCE LAW: HEARSAY A discussion paper The Law Commission welcomes your comments on this paper and seeks your response to the questions raised. These should be forwarded to: The Director, Law Commission, PO Box 2590, Wellington by Friday 14 June 1991 April 1991 Wellington, New Zealand The Law Commission was established by the Law Commission Act 1985 to promote the systematic review, reform and development of the law of New Zealand. It is also to advise on ways in which the law can be made as understandable and accessible as practicable. The Commissioners are: Sir Kenneth Keith KBE - President The Hon Mr Justice Wallace Peter Blanchard The Director of the Law Commission is Alison Quentin-Baxter. The offices of the Law Commission are at Fletcher Challenge House, 87-91 The Terrace, Wellington. Telephone (04) 733-453. Postal address: PO Box 2590, Wellington, New Zealand. Use of submissions The Law Commission's processes are essentially public, and it is subject to the Official ~nformation Act 1982. Thus copies of submissions made to the Commission will normally be made available on request, and the Commission may mention submissions in its reports. Any request for the withholding of information on the grounds of confidentiality or for any other reason will be determined in accordance with the Official Information Act. Preliminary Paper/Law Commission Wellington 1991 ISSN 0113-2245 This preliminary paper may be cited as: NZLC PP15 iii Contents Page PREFACE v SUMMARY OF VIEWS vi i SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS ix I INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Law Journal and Australian Law Journal Reports
    Australian Law Journal and Australian Law Journal Reports INDEX TO VOLUMES 77-82 (2003-2008) Index compiled by ALAN WALKER BA (Hons), DipLib LAWBOOK CO. 2009 Customer Service and sales inquiries: Tel: 1300 304 195 Fax: 1300 304 196 Web: www.thomsonreuters.com Email: [email protected] Editorial inquiries: Tel: (02) 8587 7000 HEAD OFFICE 100 Harris Street PYRMONT NSW 2009 Tel: (02) 8587 7000 Fax: (02) 8587 7100 © 2009 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited ABN 64 058 914 688 trading as Lawbook Co. ISSN 0813-4073 Published in Sydney by Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 Typeset by Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited, Pyrmont, NSW Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd, Riverwood, NSW Table of Contents Volumes 77-82 Page Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... iii General Editors of the Australian Law Journal ............................................................................................ iv Table of Authors .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Cases ............................................................................................................................................. 15 General Index .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Immunity Policy for Cartel Conduct: a Critical Legal Analysis
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 1954-2016 University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2016 The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Immunity Policy for Cartel Conduct: A Critical Legal Analysis Pariz Lythgo-Marshall University of Wollongong Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Lythgo-Marshall, Pariz, The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Immunity Policy for Cartel Conduct: A Critical Legal Analysis, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to a Fair Trial and the Confrontation Clause: Overruling Crawford to Rebalance the U.S. Criminal Justice Equilibrium Lindsay Hoopes
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 32 Article 7 Number 1 Winter 2009 1-1-2009 The Right to a Fair Trial and the Confrontation Clause: Overruling Crawford to Rebalance the U.S. Criminal Justice Equilibrium Lindsay Hoopes Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Lindsay Hoopes, The Right to a Fair Trial and the Confrontation Clause: Overruling Crawford to Rebalance the U.S. Criminal Justice Equilibrium, 32 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 305 (2009). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol32/iss1/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Right to a Fair Trial and the Confrontation Clause: Overruling Crawfordto Rebalance the U.S. Criminal Justice Equilibrium ByLINDSAY HoOPES* I. Introduction The right to a fair trial is the linchpin of the criminal justice system. The right protects individuals from arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of basic rights and freedoms - most importantly, life and liberty. The United Nations describes the right as an "inalienable right of all members of the human family," a "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," and a "fundamental" guarantee of human rights and preservation of the rule of law.1 The right to a fair trial transcends differences in legal systems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Repealing to Provocation Defence to Murder
    PROVOKED TO ACTION: THE IMPLICATIONS OF REPEALING THE PROVOCATION DEFENCE TO MURDER M R M GALE A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago October 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Margaret Briggs for her patience, guidance and ability to impart wisdom at short notice. To Geoff Hall for his valuable input and invaluable resourcefulness. To ‘the office’ for driving me mad and keeping me sane. To the badueys for always reminding me of the value of a bag of laughs. To Jono for showing me what determination means. Most importantly, to Mum and Dad for their love, support and belief in me in everything I do. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 PART I Chapter One: Genesis ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Defences Generally ........................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Distinguishing Justification and Excuse ............................................................................ 4 1.3 A Theory of Defences ........................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Provocation and its Origins ............................................................................................... 6 1.5 Partial Excuse or Partial Justification? .............................................................................
    [Show full text]