Evidence

[smithy16]

Exactly what is types of evidence is admissible in the Victorian Legal System and which evidence is not?

[Anon123]

i think you just need to say hearsay evidence is not allowed for establishing a defense/argument [not sure about the correct word], or illegally obtained evidence

[andy456]

Any evidence obtained with the permission of a warrant ( blood samples, teeth impression etc ) is admissible.
I think a question is more likely to come up regarding what type of evidence is inadmissible, or perhaps a situation where some evidence is inadmissable and you have to identify it and explain why it is inadmissible.
HERESAY is inadmissible in court.

[smithy16]

The question which it related to was one about the Adversary System and the feature of Strict Rules of Evidence and Procedure. So just saying that the strict rules of evidence don't allow hearsay evidence to be used in court is probably enough.

[selim31]

Any evidence obtained with the permission of a warrant ( blood samples, teeth impression etc ) is admissible.
I think a question is more likely to come up regarding what type of evidence is inadmissible, or perhaps a situation where some evidence is inadmissable and you have to identify it and explain why it is inadmissible.
 

Bahhh.... That's BS. They won't ever ask a question what type of evidence is inadmissible. There will more likely be a question on the adversary system as a whole, or at the very least a question asking to compare the role of the judge with the role of the judge in an inquisitorial system.

[Anon123]

Any evidence obtained with the permission of a warrant ( blood samples, teeth impression etc ) is admissible.
I think a question is more likely to come up regarding what type of evidence is inadmissible, or perhaps a situation where some evidence is inadmissable and you have to identify it and explain why it is inadmissible.
 

Bahhh.... That's BS. They won't ever ask a question what type of evidence is inadmissible. There will more likely be a question on the adversary system as a whole, or at the very least a question asking to compare the role of the judge with the role of the judge in an inquisitorial system.

They could....I don't see why you would so hastily dismiss it, its a valid question that could be part of structured (1.a, b, c, d) type of question

Not to mention you could talk about it in inquisitorial system vs adversarial system [no restrictions on evidence in inquisitorial system IIRC - which is nice to talk about because it has clear strengths and weaknesses]

[smithy16]

There are some restrictions on evidence in the inquisitorial system. For example, evidence that has been illegally obtained cannot be used as well as evidence which breaches privacy laws.

[andy456]

Any evidence obtained with the permission of a warrant ( blood samples, teeth impression etc ) is admissible.
I think a question is more likely to come up regarding what type of evidence is inadmissible, or perhaps a situation where some evidence is inadmissable and you have to identify it and explain why it is inadmissible.
 

Bahhh.... That's BS. They won't ever ask a question what type of evidence is inadmissible. There will more likely be a question on the adversary system as a whole, or at the very least a question asking to compare the role of the judge with the role of the judge in an inquisitorial system.

They could. and its not BS. It could as Anon123 said in possibly part c in question 1 for example. They can ask you anything in relation to the study design unfortunately, so you need to be ready for ANYTHING.

[smithy16]

To be honest, i think we would be pretty hard done by to get a question like that. Whilst most people do know roughly what evidence is and isn't admissible, its not a great question.