Illegally or Improperly Obtained Evidence: Time to Reform s 138 of the Uniform Evidence Legislation?
Article
Article Title | Illegally or Improperly Obtained Evidence: Time to Reform s 138 of the Uniform Evidence Legislation? |
---|---|
ERA Journal ID | 35442 |
Article Category | Article |
Authors | |
Author | Hemming, Andrew |
Journal Title | Journal of Judicial Administration |
Journal Citation | 31 (2), pp. 92-112 |
Article Number | 1220 |
Number of Pages | 21 |
Year | 2021 |
Publisher | Lawbook Co. |
Place of Publication | Australia |
ISSN | 1036-7918 |
Web Address (URL) | https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20220113060237 |
Abstract | Section 138 of the uniform evidence legislation deals with the discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence, and has its origins in the well-known judgment of Stephen and Aickin JJ in Bunning v Cross. Section 138 prevents the admission of improperly or illegally obtained evidence ‘unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained’. Thus, unlike the common law, s 138 places the onus of proof on the Crown to justify the admission of improperly or illegally obtained evidence, a situation this article argues should be reversed. The balancing exercise is undertaken through an examination of a non-exhaustive list of matters to be taken into account by the court as set out in s 138(3)(a)-(h). This article will analyse the list of matters in s 138(3)(a)-(h) with a view to considering whether the list should be prioritised in some form, given that jurisdictions such as New South Wales have attempted to influence the balancing exercise by introducing legislation that confers a right of appeal on the Director of Public Prosecutions against an evidentiary ruling that substantially weakens the prosecution case: s 5F(3A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). In particular, in light of animal welfare cases such as Lenah Game Meats and Kadir v The Queen, there will be a focus on the matter set out in s 138(3)(h), namely, ‘the difficulty (if any) of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of an Australian law’. Finally, the interaction between s 138 and s 90 Discretion to exclude admissions will be considered, given that s 90 is effectively a residual fairness discretion to exclude evidence. |
Keywords | s 138 Uniform Evidence Legislation; Illegally obtained evidence; Reform |
Contains Sensitive Content | Does not contain sensitive content |
ANZSRC Field of Research 2020 | 480505. Legal practice, lawyering and the legal profession |
Public Notes | This article was first published by Thomson Reuters in Journal of Judicial Administration and should be cited as Andrew Hemming, Illegally or Improperly Obtained Evidence: Time to Reform s 138 of the Uniform Evidence Legislation?, (2021) 31 JJA 92. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at https://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/en-au/contact.html. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. |
Byline Affiliations | University of Southern Queensland |
Institution of Origin | University of Southern Queensland |
https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q70x9/illegally-or-improperly-obtained-evidence-time-to-reform-s-138-of-the-uniform-evidence-legislation
Download files
1066
total views4
total downloads6
views this month1
downloads this month