Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36

By: Robert Sheldon

Nov 03 2011

Category: Business Records, Evidence

Leave a comment

This case is important but there are so many nuggets that it needs to be looked at afresh every time particular evidentiary issues arise.  So I have not summarised it.

 

18. …However, Basten JA doubted the “statutory basis” for the conclusion that ss 7679 apply only to evidence of opinions given by witnesses in court.

19. There are strong textual reasons supporting Basten JA’s doubts and indicating that the conclusion is not merely to be doubted, but is wrong. Section 69 is in Pt 3.2 of the ActSections 7679 are in Pt 3.3. Section 56(1)[11] contemplates that relevant, ie otherwise admissible, evidence may be excluded by more than one exclusionary rule in Pts 3.23.11. One exclusionary rule is the hearsay rule. If evidence satisfies s 69, then by s 69(2) the hearsay rule does not apply. But s 69(2) does not provide that the evidence is admissible. It is only admissible if no other exclusionary rule applies. Section 76 excludes “[e]vidence of an opinion” – not “evidence by a witness of an opinion”. There is no indication in any other provision in Pt 3.3 that it operates only in relation to the opinions of witnesses. 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: