英语论文网

Uniformed Evidence Act Changing Common Laws Law Essay

统一的举证法案改变了常见的法律

在1995年2月23日，正式生效后，1995年（Cth）（UEA）统一的举证法案被看做是“澳大利亚司法的最重要的改革之一”[1]随着改革开始改变。通行法律也开始改变，提供了一个对于准则的统一理解，且法律可以运用在澳大利亚的管辖权范围内。

对于UEA的改变传闻包括定义什么是传闻证据。[2]这是重要的，且会在这个作业中的第三章节中后续讨论。定以前，“代表”一个人所做的是只被认为是谣言，只要那个人企图证实一个事实隐含的含义。[3]改变包括是否可以合理地认为“人们企图确定事实”。[4]

59节（2A）被插入作为一个响应新南威尔士州最高法院的决议。[5]这个案例质疑了“目的”这个词在s59(1)的含义。Spigelman CJ表达了担忧之情，因为这个单词需要部分评估员具备特定的有意识性的注意。[6]给予这种推理，很少隐含的断言会被规则圈定。[7]

澳大利亚法律改革委员会（ALRC）支持的理由是，

After receiving Royal Assent on 23 February 1995, The Uniform Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (‘UEA’) is considered ‘one of the most important reforms in the administration of justice in Australia.’ [1] With reform came changes. The common law changed to provide a universal understanding of principles and law which could be applied within Australia’s jurisdictional boundaries.

Changes to the UEA with regards to hearsay include defining what hearsay evidence is. [2] This is significant and will be discussed further in Chapter three of this assignment. Prior to the definitions, ‘representation made by a person was only classified to be hearsay only if that person intended to assert a fact that was implied in the representation.’ [3] Changes include whether ‘it can reasonably supposed that’ the person intended to assert the fact. [4]

Section 59 (2A) was inserted as a response to the decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in R v Hannes. [5] This case questioned the meaning of the word ‘intended’ in s 59(1). Spigelman CJ expressed concern as the word ‘requires some form of specific conscious advertence on the part of the assessor’. [6] Based on this reasoning, ‘very few implied assertions would be caught by the rule’. [7]

The Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’) supported the reasoning that ‘implied assertions made outside of the court should not be caught by the hearsay rule.’ [8] Adopting the view of Spigelman CJ, it was decided that implied assertions made outside of the court ‘could cause considerable practical difficulties’ [9] and ‘could cause disruption if adopted’. [10] Based on these findings, section 59(1) was amended by the insertion of the words ‘it can reasonably be supposed that’. [11] Section 59(2A) was also inserted to clarify the need of intention and that ‘an objective test of intention’ [12] was needed. Studdert J concluded that prior to the amendment ‘the implied representation in question did not pass the hearsay imposed test’ and ‘absent evidence to the contrary, it could not be inferred that the appellant did not intend to assert by what he wrote the very matters which the appellant contends emerged from a reading of the document.’ [13]

II COMMON LAW AN IMPORTANT REFERENCE

The Privy Council in 1956 define the hearsay rule in the case Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor on Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya. [14] On 29 April 1955, Mr. Subramaniam was arrested by security forces, wounded, and in possession of 20 rounds of ammunition [15] and sentenced to death. At his trial in the Supreme Court of Malaya, Mr. Subramaniam’s lawyer argued that he had been acting under duress.

Subramanian gave evidence in an attempt to communicate that he was under threats by communists. He testified that he foun本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。