![]() ![]() Similarly, the claim that a free report would give a more accurate version of the events in dispute is supported. Psychological research lends support to the claim advanced at times by witnesses that being tied to answering designated questions tends to result in the distortion of their testimony. Nonetheless, although the ALRC acknowledged that the benefit may be marginal in a number of cases, it was suggested that narrative evidence should be encouraged, to avoid the ‘filtering and distorting’ process of giving evidence by question and answer. Witnesses may also give irrelevant or inadmissible evidence, including hearsay evidence. ![]() It has been argued that the method leads to witnesses taking charge of proceedings, resulting in wasted court time. ![]() Giving evidence in narrative form may also be more culturally appropriate for some witnesses and may assist child witnesses to give evidence.ĥ.8 ALRC 26 discussed criticisms of ‘free report’ or narrative evidence. However, research cited by the ALRC shows that allowing a witness to give a free report of events as a narrative may yield a significantly more accurate version, as answering specific questions may limit and distort testimony. ‘Narrative form’ refers to the witness giving evidence as a continuous story in his or her own words, uninterrupted by questions from counsel.ĥ.7 In the Interim Report of the previous Evidence inquiry, the ALRC noted that there was a general reluctance by lawyers to allow witnesses to tell their story freely, with oral evidence being limited to the answering of specific questions. However, s 29(2) of the Acts also allows a witness to give evidence wholly or partially in narrative form, where the party applies to the court for a direction allowing the witness to do so. The uniform Evidence Acts maintain the question and answer format as the primary way in which witnesses are examined. Giving evidence in narrative formĥ.6 In a trial, witnesses generally give their evidence in response to specific questions from counsel. The exceptions contained in the legislation are similar to those canvassed by the ALRC as instances where leading questions could be appropriate either to obtain the whole of a witness’ evidence or to expedite the trial. The witness is an expert and the question seeks the witness’ opinion on a hypothetical statement of facts related to the evidence being adduced.ĥ.5 This provision reflects what the ALRC considered in its final Report of the previous Evidence inquiry to be existing practices in relation to leading questions. The question relates to a matter not in dispute or No objection is made to the question (where the other party is represented by a lawyer) The matter relates to an introductory part of the witness’ evidence ![]() ĥ.4 Under s 37 of the uniform Evidence Acts, a leading question may not be put to a witness in examination in chief or re-examination except where: In order to protect the integrity of the evidence, a party who calls a witness is prevented from asking leading questions-questions that suggest a desired answer or a set of assumptions. Uniform Evidence Acts and other legislationĥ.3 It is a general principle of the common law that a witness must testify in his or her own words. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |