Book your consultation

Book Now Mobile

Table of Contents

Key Cases for Evidence



  • Smith – recognition evidence by police asserting person what that in the pics/footage due to previous dealings was irrelevant
  • Evans – dressing accused in clothing worn by person seen by witness gave no assistance to jury in determining if it was the person



  • Graham – fresh in the memory: depends on how much time passed, hours and days, recent and immediate not necessarily good quality



  • Allstate – must be sufficient experience in the actual field
  • HG – specialised knowledge is matters that ordinary person in unable to form sound judgment and sufficiently recognised reliable body
  • Tang – anatomy expert identified T in photo by anatomy – not scientifically accepted technique – inadmissible



  • Alexander – problems with evidence
  • Domican – form of warning to be given
  • R v D – court highlighted reasons why it was undesirable to hold ID parade after witness already identified accused



  • Makin – dead adopted babies: relevance of similar fact evidence was that they were the sort of people who were inclined to murder chn, therefore they prob murdered this child
  • PWD – type of behaviour doesn’t need to be similar to that charged for it to be tendency evidence
  • Hoch – explanation of concoction re: schoolboys sexual assault
  • Pfenning – the probable evidence requires there to be no other rational explanation of the evidence consistent with the innocence of the accused
  • Ellis – robberies with rubber seal around glass removed held similar and tendency
  • Li – need not demonstrate a tendency to commit a particular crime – applies to show tendency to ‘act in a particular way’



  • Baker – justification: freedom of communication



  • Ta – doc drugged and sexually assaulted woman: in trial improper q was asked ‘Look at video – does it look like your consenting?’ – Q was held irrelevant



  • Adam – evidence can be relevant for credibility and something else
  • Palmer – distinction between credibility evidence and evidence relevant to fact in issue
  • El-Azzi – re 103: probative value of evidence relates to credibility of witness i.e. evidence must substantially affect the assessment of credibility of witness



  • Rondo – reasonable suspicion is less than a belief but more than a real possibility



  • White – suspects cigarette butt taken from ground: wanted to excluded as DNA wasn’t properly acquired



  • Ye Zhang – what police said/threats was held violent/oppressive and led to admission (s84) therefore it was inadmissible

Relevance and admissibility

Smith v The Queen 2001

  • Whether evidence of police officers recognising the accused in bank photographs was relevant
  • Issues: Could police give relevant evidence of recognition of the accused by utilising photographs taken from a bank security system? In other words could such evidence rationally affect the assessment by the jury of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, namely who was it depicted in the bank photograph.
  • Facts: Four men entered a bank and carried out a robbery. Bank security cameras took photographs of what occurred. The Crown alleged that the appellant was one of the persons who entered the bank and that proof was available from the photographs. Police who had previously had dealings with the appellant gave evidence that they recognised him in the photographs.
  • Held: (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ; KirbyJ dissenting on the issue of relevance of the evidence but agreeing in the ultimate result) In this case the assessment of the identity was taken from the same material that was available to the jury. Therefore the witness’s assertion of recognition was not evidence that could rationally affect the assessment to be made by the jury on the same issue and was therefore not relevant. If the assessment of probability of the fact was affected by the police officer’s evidence it is not by any process of reasoning but simply because the decision maker is permitting the substitution of the officer’s view for their own. In a case where the issue extends beyond the narrow question of who is depicted in the photograph it may be relevant for the witness to give recognition evidence. An example is provided in the case of Goodall.
  • The police gave evidence of having previously seen the accused dressed in a distinctive jacket. They were able to depose that they recognised the accused in the jacket in a bank security photograph. Other examples are provided by the necessity to give evidence that the accused’s appearance differs from his appearance at trial in some significant way or that the photograph depicts some distinctive feature present in the accused that could only be identified by someone familiar with his appearance. Such further examples may give rise to questions as to the applicability of the opinion rule (s 76, Evidence Act) but that question does not arise in this appeal (on the judgment of the majority).
  • Result: Order of the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside. Conviction and sentence quashed and new trial ordered.

Papakosmas v R 1999

  • different ways it can be “relevant”
  • Facts: P allegedly raped colleague at office party in small room. P claim consent. C came out of room (crying/distressed) and tells 3 colleagues ‘P just raped me’.
  • Signifiance: 1st sig case post-EA 1995 Act.
  • Held: relevance:
  1. Proving the facts asserted by the complainant (non consent). Not excluded by hearsay rule bcos s66. Colleagues heard/saw C right after the alleged rape.
  2. Supporting the credibility of the complainant.

Evans v The Queen 2007

  • Facts: robbery. On video, perp wore baklava, sunglasses and overalls. In trial, Pros made E wear baklava, sunglasses, overalls in front of jury. Also walk around and say things said by perp in video.
  • Issues: rel for jury to see E like that?
  • Held:
  • Gummow and Hayne JJ: NO:
    • Cannot rationally affect jury – might resemble robber but could also resemble anyone wearing same thing.
    • Nothing material for jury to compare – video doesn’t show face of perp.
    • BUT walking/talking COULD rationally affect – compare with video.
  • Kirby J: YES
    • Relevance is BROAD threshold.
    • Similarity between E and robber à rationally affect jury.
    • Inadmissable bcos prejudicial etc but NOT because of irrelevant.
  • Heydon J (Crennan J agreeing): YES
    • Evidence doesn’t need to prove WHOLE case (to be relevant) – just go towards proving (indirectly) identity.
    • Conversely, it WOULD be relevant if E did NOT resemble the perp.


Hearsay and original evidence

  • The hearsay rule ordinarily prohibits the proving of a fact by the use of evidence of what someone said, prior to the court case, about that fact
  • Original evidence: eyewitness giving their account of the facts from memory under oath in the witness box
  • Out-of-court statements (oral or written), on the other hand, are neither given under oath nor amenable to testing by cross-examination
  • The hearsay rule, by insisting on eyewitness reports of events, is a logical part of that procedure. Critics of the hearsay rule however have doubted the efficacy of this model i.e. Issue of memory.


Hearsay – the exclusionary rule

  • s59 The hearsay rule – exclusion of hearsay evidence
  • two critical elements in s59(1) previous representation made by a person & that its relied on to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation


  • Previous representation made by a person
    • Previous representation e. out-of-court statement
    • Express oral or written representations
    • Implied representations
    • Representations to be inferred from conduct
    • Representations not intended to be communicated
    • Representations not communicated
    • Previous representation made by a person


  • To prove a fact that was intended to be asserted
  • Second element in s59(1) distinguishes hearsay from original evidence
  • If, by the out-of-court statement, a person intends to assert some fact or other and if the statement is being used to prove that fact, then the statement will be hearsay. OR Does the evidence offered to prove the fact that the light was red amount merely to some person’s out of court assertion of that fact?
  • Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor: At trial, the verbal threats by the terrorists were excluded on the grounds of hearsay. The question on appeal was whether the threats had been rightly excluded.  The Privy Council held that the trial judge had been in error and the threats were not hearsay.


  • Representations with multiple relevance


  • Implied hearsay and the intention of the maker of the representation
  • s59 refers to ‘previous representations (that are relied on) to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation’ i.e. a requirement of intended assertion
  • implied hearsay: Eg. Assertion ‘This is my mother’ implicit in the representation ‘My mother is feeling sick’ when uttered to a stranger in the mothers presence.
  • Walton v R: ‘Hello Daddy’ The majority considered the evidence to be hearsay and inadmissible for that purpose.


  • The intention requirement and express representations
  •  Summary – identifying hearsay evidence


Smith v The Queen 2001

As above

Lee v The Queen 2001qaz

  • Facts: Lee was alleged to have committed an armed robbery in which a gun was fired. A witness, Romeo Calin, was alleged to have told the police that he saw the appellant on the day of the robbery and the appellant said to him “Don’t bother me I have just done a job, I fired two shots”. At trial Calin said he had no recollection of the conversation with the appellant and denied making a statement to the police. The Crown obtained leave to cross-examine Calin and tendered his statement to police.  The High Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the effect of s. 60 might permit evidence of first hand hearsay as evidence of the fact (such as the police relating that Mr Calin said that he saw the appellant on the day of the robbery), but not second hand hearsay (the police relating that Mr Calin said that the appellant said ‘I have just done a job’ etc.).
  • Held: that s. 60 does not apply to second hand or more remote hearsay. 

Jango v NT of Aus 2004

  • The applicants revised the expert evidence in an attempt to comply with provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). This interlocutory case deals with persistent evidentiary issues, such as the overall probative value of the evidence, alleged elements of advocacy in the expert report, whether observations about communication difficulties require expertise and whether the expert is permitted to evaluate specific evidence.

Hearsay – the exceptions


6.4 Exceptions to the rule against hearsay

  • 3 broad types of exceptions to the hearsay rule
    • 1 evidence that is relevant for a non-hearsay purpose s60
    • 2 first-hand hearsay s63-66A
    • 3 more remote forms of hearsay s67-75


6.4.1 s60 – evidence that is relevant for a non-hearsay purpose

  • effect of s60(1) is that, if the rep is admitted for its non-hearsay purpose, it may then also be used for any relevant hearsay purpose (to prove the fact asserted in it)


  • S60 and the discretion to limit the use of evidence (s136)
  • Allows a judge to limit the use of evidence if a particular use might be unfairly prejudicial to a party to be misleading or confusing
  • This section may be used to reverse the effect of s60 by limiting the use of a previous representation to its non-hearsay use for which it was admitted
  • Papakosmas v R it was argued that s136 should be used as a general rule to limit the use of sexual assault complaint evidence to its non-hearsay purpose. The HC rejected the argument, stating that ‘to assert a general principle of the kind for which the appellant contends…would be to subvert the policy of the legislation.’

  • S60, remote hearsay and admissions
  • s60(2) intends to allows remote hearsay to be admitted if the previous representations have been admitted for a non-hearsay purpose
  • s60(3) excludes admissions in criminal proceedings from the operation of s60


6.4.2 First-hand hearsay

  • First hand hearsay is evidence of an out-of-court statement (previous representation) where the person who said the statement actually perceived the fact they are talking about, rather than hearing it from someone else, and that out-of-court statement is being used to prove a fact intended to be asserted by it
  • Div 2 of Pt 3.2 creates a new category of exception for first hand hearsay allowing such hearsay to be admissible in some circumstances in spite of the exclusionary rule in s59
  • Note: not all first-hand hearsay will be admissible


  • Definition of first-hand hearsay
  • s62(1) defines a first-hand representation as ‘a previous representation that was made by a person who had personal knowledge of an asserted fact’
  • the maker is the person who said the out-of-court statement (previous respresentation) not the witness who is repeating that out-of-court statement in the witness box (unless the witness is trying to repeat their own out-of-court statement)
  • so first-hand hearsay refers to the case where a witness is trying to repeat in the witness box a statement that she heard from a person who actually perceived the facts or events being reported
  • R v Vincent A woman gave details of a car and then left. The trial judge admitted the young woman’s representation on the basis that it was first-hand hearsay.


6.4.3 The first-hand hearsay exceptions – admissibility of first-hand hearsay

  • once determined if a previous rep is first-hand, the next question is where one of the exceptions in Div 2 applies to make the evidence admissible
  • distinct exceptions for first-hand hearsay in civil cases (s63 and 64) and in criminal cases (s65 and 66)
  • the factors within these sections that are relevant to the admissibility of first-hand hearsay are the availability or unavailability of the maker of the representation and the quality (reliability) of the evidence
  • general effect of provisions in s63-66 is that in each case the the previous representation is 1st hand and the requirements of the section are satisfied, secondary evidence of the representation will be admissible
  • s67 requires reasonable notice to be given of the intention to adduce 1st hand hearsay
  • in criminal and civil, 1st hand hearsay may be admissible where the maker of the representation is not available to give evidence (s63,65)
  • there is an exhaustive list of circumstances when a person is considered unavailable. one of the circumstances is where all reasonable steps have been taken to secure the person without success
  • Tsang Chi Ming v Uvanna a solicitor left it too late to locate the witness and just searched the phone book this was considered insufficient to conclude the witness was unavailable.
  • Tim Barr v Narui Gold Coast the question was whether a Japanese citizen in Japan was unavailable to give evidence within the meaning of the Act. The Court found the witness unavailable.

6.4.4 First-hand hearsay in civil cases

  • s63 applies in civil where maker of previous representation (1st hand) isn’t available to give evidence. Instead it is allows to be given by a person who perceived the representation being made or by a doc
  • even when maker of the representation is available to give evidence s64 allows hearsay evidence to be used instead of calling the person who made the representation, if it would cause undue expense or delay or be impracticable to call the person
  • or if the person who made the rep is available and is to be called, then hearsay evidence may still be given of the rep – either by the maker himself or herself, or by another person who perceived the rep being made s64(3)
  • effect of these provisions is that hearsay evidence (as long as its 1st hand) will be permitted almost all the time in civil proceedings
  • this is a significant departure from the position at common law
  • Caterpillar v John Deere the evidence of a witness in the US and who wasn’t called to give evidence was held not to fall within s63 or 64 exceptions because in the context of litigation involving IP rights of substantial value the undue expense, delay or impracticability of calling the witness was not made out
  • De Rose v SA the judgment of O’Loughlin J is an eg of the operation of s64
  • Citibank v Liu, Abn Amro Bank v Liu Hamilton J discussed ‘undue expense’ when measured against the total amount claimed in the proceedings and the availability of video link as an alternative for remote witnesses


6.4.5 First-hand hearsay in criminal cases

  • 2 general features about 1st hand hearsay provisions in criminal s65 and 66
    • more restrictive than in civil
      • documentary evidence is not permitted must be by maker or witness
    • more liberal for the accused than for the prosecution


6.4.6 Criminal proceedings where maker is unavailable – s65

  • s65 allows for 1st hand hearsay to be given in criminal cases where the maker of the previous representation is not available to give evidence


  • Represenations for which some guaranteed of reliability exists – s65(2)
  • general effect of s65(2) is that 1st hand hearsay will be admissible via a person who perceived the representation being made but only if at least one of the guarantees of reliability listed in the section is met (and the maker is unavailable, notice is given pursuant to s67 or leave granted)


  • Representations made under a duty – s65(2)(a)
  • effect is that if the maker was at the time under a duty to make it and theyre unavailable to give evidence, then evidence of their rep may be given by a person who witness the making of the rep


  • Representations made when or shortly after and unlikely to have been fabricated – s65(2)(b)
  • this s allows evidence of a rep that was made when or shortly after the asserted fact occurred and in circumstances that make it unlikely that it was fabricated, to be given by a person who witnessed that representation being made
  • general view is that considerations like stress/anxiety will enhance reliability as they have less capacity/inclination to concoct a representation; the focus is on reporting what happened not a different objective
  • R v Ambrosoli
    • it was noted that the focus of s65(2) is on the circumstances of the making of the representation as opposed to the accuracy of the representation.
    • The question was whether the witness’s statement to police and the transcript of his evidence at the committal proceedings should be admitted under s65. Court held evidence not admissible under s65(2) (b) or (c) and transcript was admissible under 65(3).
    • is authority for the meaning of the phrase ‘made in circumstances’
  • Harris v R the meaning of ‘shortly after’ was considered. The issue was whether a statement by the deceased that was made within 24 hours of the incident should have been admitted under s65(2)(b)


  • Reliable representations – s65(2)(c)
  • focus is on reliability of rep rather than the unlikelihood of it having been fabricated
  • rational is that all reliable evidence should be admitted
  • approach favoured by Mason CJ in Walton v R but not endorsed by majority
  • Conway v R
    • held s65(2)(c) should be interpreted strictly
    • C murdered wife by heroin and previously placed it in her coffee
    • Q was whether conversations she had with people that he was trying to drug her were admissible under the s65 exception to hearsay


  • Evidence already given in prior proceedings – s65(3)-(6)
  • if the maker of the previous representation has already given evidence in an Aus or overseas proceedings and has been cross-examined or there was a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine, then the 1st hand hearsay evidence of the rep will be admissible provided it meets the conditions under s 65(3)-(6)
  • previous rep may be adduced by a properly authenticated transcript s65(6)


  • Representations against interest of maker – s65(7)


  • Representations adduced by an accused – s65(8), (9)
  • s allows ‘the exonerating statements of the alleged victim to be received, the confession of 3rd parties and statements of deceased persons who could have given evidence’


6.4.7 First-hand hearsay in criminal cases where maker is available

  • in criminal, where the maker of the previous representation is available, there is no provision for not calling the witness and relying instead on hearsay evidence
  • effect of s66 is that the person must be called if evidence of the persons previous representation s to be admissible
  • it also must be made when the facts asserted in it were fresh in the memory of the person who made the rep (s66(2)
  • Graham v The Queen
  • R v XY


  • Proofs of evidence – s66(3)
  • this s places a restriction on the prosecution where the evidence sought to be adduced is a previous representation contained in a police statement or proof of evidence
  • such rep will not be admissible if adduced by the prosecution
  • purpose is to prevent prosecution from calling witness and then simple tendering their statements instead of leading direct oral evidence


6.4.8 First-hand contemporaneous statements about a person’s health etc – s66A

  • Walton v R
  • idea is that a person’s statements about his state of mind or intention is evidence of that state of mind or intention
  • this s exempts from the exclusionary rule, 1st hand hearsay evidence of contemporaneous representations by a person about that person’s health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge, state of mind
  • statements of such are not covered by the exception as the reliability of them is tied up in their contemporaneity with the feelings etc they express


6.4.9 Other exceptions to the hearsay rule

  • Div 3 of Pt 3.2 applies to more remote forms of hearsay ie. hearsay that is not 1st hand
  • the remote hearsay exceptions are justified on the basis of 2 criteria: reliability and necessity


  • Business records
  • exempt from hearsay rule on the assumption that doc prepared in the context of business dealings are likely to be accurate, given the importance of accurate record-keeping to the operation and affairs of a business
  • exemption in s69 and applies to any doc that was or formed part of a record kept for purposes of a business


  • Tags and labels (s70)
  • these are considered doc evidence under UEL as they are things on which there is writing or other marks and the purpose of adducing the doc is to prove its contents
  • under UEL these are considered hearsay which is consistent with the Act’s thinking with respect to their status a doc evidence
  • this s provides and exception to the hearsay rule for a tag/label attached to or writing placed on and object if it may reasonable supposed to have been so attached or placed both in the course or a business and for the purpose of describing or stating the nature, etc of the object


  • Electronic communications (s71)
  • exception in s71 allows representation in electronic comm to be used to prove certain things such as the identity of the sender and recipient and the date on which the communication was sent


  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs (s72)
  • this exception is a recognition of oral tradition in ATSI cultures and is aimed at making it easier that it has been for evidence of traditional law and customes to be adduced where relevant

R v Suteski [No 4]

  • operation of s65 ‘unavailability’ and s137
  • Refusal of witness to give evidence
  • Witness “unavailable to give evidence” for purposes s65(1) admission of hearsay
  • Discretion to exclude s137



02 8806 0866

Book Online


Explore More Legal Resources and Articles

Role Of Victim Impact Statements In Sentencing

  Summary Victim impact statements are important for the criminal process as they can influence the sentencing courts when considering penalties and punishment. Despite the fact they are essentially based on opinion, victim impact statements are written to describe the physical and emotional suffering crime has affected. A victim impact statement can be written by either the primary victim or the family, friends or other affected victims of the primary victim. A victim impact statement can be presented to the court whether the offender pleads guilty or not guilty as it is more relevant to sentencing than it is for proceedings. If you are unsure about anything to do with victim impact statements then you should seek legal advice as soon as possible. Jameson Law have a team of expert criminal lawyers ready and willing to assist you with anything you need. What Is A Victim Impact Statement? A victim impact statement allows the victim a voice within the criminal proceedings. It is a chance for the victim to explain their pain, suffering or mitigation of a crime committed against them. It is important for the court to understand the impact the criminal offending had on the victim so it can factor into two important issues; whether there is a continued risk to the community and whether there should be a harsher or lighter penalty considered. The court is able to use a victim impact statement to factor into sentencing matters for the defendant. At the sentencing hearing, the victim or prosecution will read the victim impact statement aloud to demonstrate the emotional suffering the victim has endured. If the defendant has plead not guilty but been found guilty of the offence, the victim impact statement can be a powerful tool. It can signify to the court the lack of remorse shown by the defendant towards the victim.   Case Study Kayla is the victim of a violent assault where she suffered a fractured skull, broken cheek bones and a broken arm. She was in significant distress at the time the police arrived at the scene. Kayla has spoken to the prosecution about wanting to provide a victim impact statement to the court. Kayla has been having nightmares, flashbacks and anxiety attacks since the assault due to the harm suffered. On top of the physical harm, there is deep emotional harm which she may never recover from. The court process so far has taken its toll on Kayla and she requires the support of both family members and a support person during the court case. The court finds her victim impact statement to have influence in relation to the defendants sentence, The court can see that Kayla has suffered harm at the hands of the defendants and that it has irreversibly changed her life. Is A Victim Impact Statement Required? There is no requirement for a victim to provide a statement about what they have suffered and how it is effecting them. In many instances, it can be too painful for the victim to even contemplate writing a statement or they simply elect not to do so. It can be confronting for a a statement to be read aloud which broadcasts the emotions and suffering of an already vulnerable individual. There are some who do not want their offender to become aware of how much pain, harm or suffering they have caused to their life, particularly if it is someone known to them. Ultimately, the facts, circumstances and harm suffered are presented to the court by the prosecution during the trial, if required, and those factors are taken into account when the determination is made. Who Can Write A Victim Impact Statement? Usually, the term “Victim Impact Statement” leads people to believe that the physical victim of the offence is the only one who can present to the court how the offending has affected them. Yet this is not the case. Criminal offending can have a far reaching effect depending on the circumstances and there may be other victims who feel its impact. The most powerful and life altering example which springs to mind is that of murder. In this instance, the victim of that offence is not able to express how the offending has impacted their lives but their family remains to share their pain and grief. The injury in this case is emotional, not physical.   Case Study Kyle has been found guilty of murder after he hit his best friend, Alex, with a car intentionally. This is a very serious crime. Kyle was upset with Alex over a debt that he owed him and they got into a heated argument when they met at the local pub. Alex went home and got changed so that he could go for a run to clear his head. Alex stayed at the bar and had a few more drinks. He got more and more upset about the argument and pulled out his phone to search for Alex’s location on social media. Kyle saw that he was running a few blocks away. Kyle got into his car and drove a few blocks away to try and find Alex. He saw him running up ahead of him. He put his foot on the accelerator and sped up the road to just behind Alex. He mounted the curb and accelerated into the back of Alex sending him flying over the back of the car where he hit the ground. Unfortunately, Alex died on impact. Alex’s family, specifically his pregnant fiance, submitted powerful victim impact statements to the court. Alex’s fiance lost not only her partner but the father of her unborn child and all the emotional, physical and financial support. It ultimately persuades the judge to attribute a harsher sentence. FAQS What Is Criminal Law? Criminal lawrefers to the punishment for criminal acts committed against individuals within the community. Each criminal court case is subject to either a Judge or Magistrate determining guilt based on evidence brought by the prosecutor and rebutted

Court Procedures in Sydney

Understanding court procedures can be confusing, but being prepared is key. Dressing professionally, bringing the necessary documents, and behaving respectfully In Sydney, court proceedings follow a structured process, from initial appearance to hearings. This article will break down all these areas of a court appearance in more depth. Trust Jameson Law for expert legal representation—they’re dedicated to fighting for your rights and will help you navigate through all the processes of your next appearance in court. Remember, we’re in it to win it! What should I wear while attending court? When attending court in Australia, it’s essential to dress respectfully and professionally. Opt for neat, conservative attire such as business attire or smart casual clothing. Men can wear a suit or dress pants with a collared shirt, while women can choose a pantsuit, dress, or skirt with a blouse. Avoid wearing clothing that is too casual, revealing, or flashy, as it may not be appropriate for the solemn atmosphere of the courtroom. Closed-toe shoes are preferable, and accessories should be kept minimal. Additionally, as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia points out, you should make sure to take off your sunglasses, hats or caps before you enter the courtroom. Being on time to court is extremely important. If you are late to your hearing or committal proceedings, If the Judge decides, you could be penalised. The maximum penalty that you face could be severe.   In a nutshell… Remember, your appearance reflects your respect for the court, so dressing appropriately shows that you take the proceedings seriously. Procedures to follow Addressing the Judge or Judicial Registrar: In Sydney courts, it’s important to address the Judge as “Your Honour” when speaking to them. For Judicial Registrars, use “Registrar” unless told otherwise. For example, you might say “Yes, your Honour” when addressing a Judge and “Yes, Registrar” when speaking to a Judicial Registrar. Courtroom Etiquette: As the Federal Court of Australia writes about here, Upon entering or leaving a courtroom with a Judge or Judicial Registrar present, it’s customary to bow your head as a sign of respect. This is something you should do in all courts, whether it be a family court, federal court or any other court of New South Wales. Court Proceedings: When your case is called, approach the Bar Table at the front of the courtroom and state your name to the Judge or Judicial Registrar. They will inquire about your claim and may set a timetable for the next steps, such as submitting evidence and pleadings. It’s a good idea to discuss timelines with the other party beforehand. Rule 5.04 outlines the types of orders a Judge may issue. By following these procedures, you ensure smooth communication and respectful conduct in Sydney courts. Contact Jameson Law today for a consultation. Whether it be a question about a court procedure, Maximum Penalties or how to move a hearing date, Jameson Law is a one-stop shop for all your legal needs! What should I Bring to Court? When heading to court in Sydney, it’s crucial to be prepared. Here’s what you should bring: Legal Documents: Bring any relevant paperwork related to your case, including court orders, summons, or legal agreements. It is important to bring 3 sets of documents with you to the court, one set for you, one set for the other party and another set for the judge or registrar. This ensures that court events go as smoothly as possible! Identification: Carry a valid form of identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, to verify your identity if needed. Notes and Evidence: Take notes on key points you want to remember and bring any evidence or documents supporting your case. Contact Information: Have contact details for your lawyer, if you have one, and any witnesses or other parties involved in the case. Pen and Paper: Bring a pen and notebook to jot down important information during the proceedings. A good lawyer: A good lawyer can make all the difference in court. The expert lawyers at Jameson Law are perfect examples of this. Before you get to the courtroom, they will make you understand in depth what is going on. having your understanding of what would happen if you plead guilty, what the maximum penalties might be, or things like how to move a hearing date to make proceedings move as smoothly as possible. Patience and Respect: Lastly, bring patience and a respectful attitude. Court proceedings can be lengthy and sometimes stressful, so maintaining composure and showing respect for the court and others involved is essential for a smooth process. Importance of a good lawyer during court proceedings In court proceedings, a proficient lawyer is essential, and Jameson Law stands out as an expert law firm in Sydney. A skilled lawyer, like those at Jameson Law, provides invaluable guidance, strategic representation, and unwavering support. With their expertise, they navigate complex legal processes, protect your rights, and strive for favourable outcomes. Jameson Law offers personalized attention, ensuring you understand your case and make informed decisions. Their dedication to achieving the best results means you have a strong ally in the courtroom, advocating fiercely for your interests. Trusting Jameson Law ensures you have top-tier legal representation when you need it most. Court behaviour In Sydney courts, proper behaviour is essential. Remember to switch off your mobile phone and nod respectfully when entering or leaving the room. Stand when addressing the judge or when they speak to you, and speak clearly without interrupting others. Be polite to everyone, including the judge or registrar and other parties involved. Take notes to stay organized and track important points. By following these guidelines, you demonstrate respect for the court and ensure smooth proceedings during your time in Sydney courtrooms. Court Appearances in Local Courts In Sydney, court appearances follow a structured process. Initially, when your case is brought before a magistrate, the charge will be recorded, and the final decision may be postponed to another date. If you plead guilty, sentencing might occur immediately for minor charges, but for more serious offences, the magistrate may request a pre-sentence report. If granted bail, you’ll receive a bail notice detailing your court appearance. Upon arrival, check the court lists for your assigned courtroom and be present when your case is called to avoid repercussions, especially if you’re on bail. Between initial appearances and hearings, there may be several ‘callovers’ or ‘mentions’ to schedule the case within the court timetable. Pleas of guilty or not guilty can be lodged during these appearances. Guilty pleas may lead to immediate sentencing or a later date set for sentencing. Not guilty pleas result

Defending Against Domestic Violence Charges

  In a nutshell… Domestic violence is a serious criminal law matter which can leave deep emotional and physical scars. Domestic violence refers to the use of physical, emotional, sexual financial or psychological violence against a spouse, partner, child or close relative. Of the five different categories of violence, charges can be made up of multiple different categories. Domestic violence charges are serious, and they can result in severe penalties. if you have been charged with a domestic violence offence, then you will need to obtain advice from an experienced domestic violence lawyer. Domestic Violence Defences Self defence is one of the most challenging aspects to domestic violence. It is common for a domestic argument to involve violence perpetrated by both parties; therefore, it is difficult to know who the victim is and who the perpetrator is. Self defence means a proportionate response to violence to diffuse a threat of harm. The level of violence required to diffuse the threat is different depending on the situation. For example, an individual may punch their partner in the face and their partner may need to defend themselves. Their defence may be to punch back which would be a proportionate response however to stab the individual would be a disproportionate response. Further criminal charges can also result including grievous bodily harm and assault. False Accusations In many instance, if not all, the alleged perpetrator will deny the existence of violence. There is a percentage of family violence cases which are false but it can be difficult to know whether the violence has or has not occurred. Physical violence has a higher chance of being proven given its nature and the usual existence of physical evidence (i.e. bruising, lacerations, etc). Emotional or psychological violence however, is not as easily proven and it can be word against word. It can therefore be easy for an alleged victim to make a false allegation and have domestic violence charges laid. A domestic violence conviction can result in lifelong consequences which follow and individual. For example, an individual could be accused of calling their partner a “fucking bitch” and making verbal threats to kill them. These threats could have created a genuine fear of harm which is simply word against word because there is no hard evidence of the threat. The threat could have severely impacted the life of the victim because they have increased anxiety and fear, yet they will have difficulty proving that this is the case. Insufficient Evidence A domestic violence case is ultimately dependent on evidence and sometimes, no matter the honesty of the victim, the evidence simply does not exist. A large amount of domestic violence is perpetrated in private, without witnesses, and there is no record. Emotional or psychological abuse for example is perpetrated in subtle ways which may not even be apparent to a close family member. Most domestic violence of this nature makes its way to the surface through family law such as a custody case where behavior is more easily observed. Violence can manifest in ways which are not physical and victims have difficulty explaining the impact the behavior is having. Having a domestic violence matter dismissed due to a lack of evidence however is no guarantee. More evidence may become available and the charges could be laid again. Each domestic violence case only needs to pass the test of beyond a reasonable doubt   Case Study Kayla has been charged with domestic violence charges and is due to come before the court in May. She is charged with two counts of physical violence and one count of emotional violence. Kayla’s boyfriend has made statements to police that Kayla punched him to the throat, scratched him across the back and sent him an abusive text message. Kayla is aware that domestic violence cases carry significant penalties and there are only limited defences. Kayla seeks to rely on self defense because she alleges that her partner hit her first and she was only defending herself when she scratched and punched him. She will however be pleading guilty to the abusive text message. Kayla’s self defense argument is partially accepted however she is still found guilty of assault. She received a suspended sentence. Criminal Justice System Domestic Violence Trial If you have been charged with a domestic violence offence and have chosen to plead not guilty then your matter will proceed to trial. A trial is a process whereby the evidence is presented and tested to determine guilt. It is an expensive and time-consuming legal process. A domestic violence trial under criminal law will be heard in the appellate court, local court or supreme court depending on the severity. A trial in the Supreme Court will be subject to a jury determination. It is the role of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Domestic Violence cases heard in the Family Court however are different. No criminal charges can result from a family court trial alone as it is a completely different jurisdiction. If an individual has been accused of domestic violence then this can have flow on effects for their family law matters. A domestic violence charge can indicate risk to either their spouse, partner or child and the court must determine the best course for the family using the best interests principle. Procedural Errors Procedural errors are one of the leading causes of mistrials. A mistrial occurs when the trial or evidence has been compromised in some way and it would be prejudicial to continue. A procedural error may be due to contamination of evidence, property damage or evidence being brought before the court and jury which needs to be disregarded. A procedural error can cause a miscarriage of justice if for some reason the prosecution is unable to retry the case at a later date. You should seek legal advice before making any procedural arguments to ensure correct interpretation of legislation, policies and processes. Both police, the court and each individual lawyer will have


Book your consultation