Uniform Evidence Law in Victoria, 2nd Edition

 

Overview
Uniform Evidence Law in Victoria

9780455231778
Jun 2013

ProView eBook
HKD5,796.00
(approx. USD743.08)
9780455231877

Essential guidance to evidence law in Victoria.

"This specifically Victorian edition ... will find its way, in much thumbed copies, on to benches, bar tables and desks. It will be the essential aid to an understanding of the UEA in Victoria." - Tim Smith, former Justice of the Supreme court of Victoria, from the Foreword to the 1st Edition.

Responding to Victorian practitioners’ requests for a continued focus on the evidence law in their state, Stephen Odgers provides fresh analysis in Uniform Evidence Law in Victoria 2nd Edition.

His authoritative commentary is complemented by customised and updated appendices prepared specifically for the Victorian reader.

In the three years since the first edition, there have been many important appellate judgments. The following represent just some of the key matters considered in this new Victorian edition:

  • business records and lay opinion evidence: Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36;
  • the meaning of “credibility evidence” and of “probative value”: Dupas v The Queen [2012] VSCA 328 (rejecting NSW authority);
  • privilege against self incrimination: LGM & CAM [2011] FamCAFC 195;
  • the likely effectiveness of jury directions to overcome unfair prejudice: Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29
  • excluding improperly or illegally obtained evidence: DPP v Marijancevic; DPP v Preece [2011] VSCA 355;
  • the scope of “unfair prejudice”: Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15;
  • extending “Jones v Dunkel” inferences: Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17
  • the continuing importance of common law obligations to give warnings to juries: Greensill v The Queen [2012] VSCA 306;
  • expert evidence: Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; and
  • warnings about children''s evidence: C M G v The Queen [2011] VSCA 416; RGM v R [2012] NSWCCA 89.