Order Description
Part A1: Address the questions in PPT slides 33-34 from Week 4 (Relevance, Admissibility and Judicial Discretion re: Evidence). The questions are: Think back to the Lindy Chamberlain case featured in your Session 2 notes. Do you think some of the evidence should have been disallowed under s 138, or within a voir dire (s 189)? Consider the newly amended ASIO/terrorism laws. Do you think there is a risk that evidence may be improperly or illegally gained, in the name of “protecting national security”/trying to secure a conviction against an accused? https://www.smh.com.au/national/national-security-laws-the-questions-you-were-too-nervous-to-ask-in-case-asio-was-listening-20141004-10q7ud.html Part A2. Read the newspaper article (link), and Sections 75-85 of the memorandum (link). Do you think ALL evidence should be admissible under s 138(3)? https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/nslab12014440/memo_0.html Part B: After reading about cross-examination and admissions in this week’s lecture notes/watching the Oscar Pistorius videos, do you feel that s 104(3)(c) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) would have allowed, or excluded the evidence in question? Explain with reference to your lecture notes