LAW20009 Week 1: Week 1 Collab Notes

---
title:
  name: Table of Contents
  level: 1
  center: false
exclude: ""
style:
  listType: dash
omit: []
levels:
  min: 1
  max: 6
---

# Table of Contents

- Week 1 – Introductory Matters and Relevance
    - Overview
    - Key Concepts and Legal Doctrines
        - 1. Evidence vs Proof
        - 2. Relevance – <Badge text="s 55" variant="tip" /> **Evidence Act 2008** *(Vic)*
        - 3. Admissibility – <Badge text="s 56" variant="tip" /> **Evidence Act 2008** *(Vic)*
        - 4. Facts in Issue
    - IRAC Case Summaries
        - Case: <Badge text="Smith v The Queen" variant="caution" /> (2001) 206 CLR 650
        - Case: <Badge text="Goldsmith v Sandilands" variant="caution" /> (2002) 76 ALJR 1024
        - Case: <Badge text="Papakosmas v The Queen" variant="caution" /> (1999) 196 CLR 297
        - Case: <Badge text="Festa v The Queen" variant="caution" /> (2001) 208 CLR 593
        - Case: R v Falzon (2018) 262 CLR 218
        - Case: R v Ryan (1967) 121 CLR 205
        - Case: <Badge text="Clay v The Queen" variant="caution" /> [2006] VSCA 80
        - Case: <Badge text="Radi v The Queen" variant="caution" /> [2020] VSCA 34
    - Worked Examples
        - Problem: The Bullet Box (<Badge text="Radi v The Queen" variant="caution" />)
        - Problem: The Unhappy Marriage (<Badge text="Neal v The Queen" variant="caution" />)
    - Practical Exam and Study Tips
        - IRAC Structuring
        - Memory Aids / Mnemonics
        - Warnings
    - Supplementary Reading and References
        - Cases Mentioned (AGLC4 Format)
        - Legislation
        - Other Sources
    - Open Questions or Clarifications

Week 1 – Introductory Matters and Relevance

Subject: LAW20009 – Evidence Law
Lecturer: Alana Ray
Date: [Insert Date if known]
Materials: Transcript + Slides

---

Overview

Topic Summary
Week 1 introduces the foundational principles of the law of evidence. The lecture covers the meaning of “evidence” and how it differs from “proof”, the structure and purpose of the *Evidence Act 2008 *(Vic)**, and the centrality of which defines the threshold of relevance. Students are introduced to facts in issue, how to categorise them, and the logical connection test that determines admissibility. Relevance is framed as the gateway to admissibility, and the importance of inference over speculation is emphasised through doctrinal authority and practical examples.

---

Key Concepts and Legal Doctrines

1. Evidence vs Proof

Definition

Evidence refers to information presented to the court to assist in determining facts in issue. It is not inherently determinative. Proof is the final legal conclusion a court draws after considering the totality of evidence.

Elements / Test

• Evidence is raw information (e.g. testimony, documents, objects)
• Proof is the court’s acceptance of the truth or falsity of a fact
• Evidence does not equal proof
• Proof results from fact-finder belief in the evidence

Key Cases & Authorities

• Wells, cited in Anderson et al ::: > “I have proved such and such a fact” means “I have led evidence of this fact: I hope the court will accept and act upon it”.

Lecturer Notes

• Flour ≠ bread: evidence must be processed into proof
• Misunderstanding this distinction leads to poor analysis

---

2. Relevance – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)

Definition

Under , evidence is relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect the probability of a fact in issue.

Elements / Test

• Must affect assessment of probability
• Relevance must be to a fact in issue
• Threshold is very low
• Must involve logical connection
• May be direct or circumstantial

Key Cases & Authorities

• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1999) 196 CLR 297 ::: > “Reliability is not the concern of relevance” — McHugh J

• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (2001) 208 CLR 593

  “Not enough to say evidence is weak… admissibility depends on logical connection, not strength” — Gleeson CJ

Lecturer Notes

• Always start with before assessing admissibility
• “Could rationally affect” = minimal logical link
• Weak evidence ≠ irrelevant evidence

---

3. Admissibility – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)

Definition

Once evidence passes the relevance test, it is prima facie admissible under , unless otherwise excluded.

Elements / Test

• Relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded
• Irrelevant evidence is not admissible ()
• Relevance is necessary but not sufficient

Lecturer Notes

• Think of as a metal detector
• Think of as the checkpoint – even if you pass, other rules can still exclude you (e.g. s–137)

---

4. Facts in Issue

Definition

Facts in issue are the legally material facts that one party must prove and the other may dispute. They are essential to resolving the case.

Categories

• Ultimate facts: Core legal elements of the claim/charge/defence
• Primary facts: Factual observations that support or disprove ultimate facts
• Intermediate facts: Inferences drawn from primary facts to establish ultimate facts

Key Cases & Authorities

• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (2001) 206 CLR 650 ::: > “Ultimate issues will be expressed in terms of the elements of the offence…”

• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (2002) 76 ALJR 1024

  “Facts in issue reflect the material facts that constitute the claimant’s cause of action…”

Lecturer Notes

• Always identify the facts in issue before applying the test in
• In criminal matters, look to the elements of the charge
• In civil matters, pleadings define the facts in issue

---

IRAC Case Summaries

Case: <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (2001) 206 CLR 650

Element	Detail
Issue	Whether police identification evidence was relevant under .
Rule	Evidence is relevant if it could rationally affect the probability of a fact in issue.
Application	Police recognised the accused from prior interactions and said he appeared in robbery photos. However, the jury saw both the accused and the photos themselves. The officers added no new or expert insight.
Conclusion	Evidence inadmissible — jury was in no worse a position than the officers to assess similarity.
Ratio	Where the jury has access to the same evidence as the witness, no logical connection arises. Identification evidence is irrelevant when the jury is equally equipped to form its own conclusion.

### Case: " variant="note" /> *(2002)* 76 ALJR 1024

Element	Detail
Issue	How are facts in issue identified in a civil case?
Rule	Material facts are those pleaded in support of a cause of action or defence.
Application	The claimant pleaded causes of action and the respondent’s defence disputed key matters. The High Court confirmed that only those issues pleaded and denied formed the factual issues.
Conclusion	Only pleaded facts that are material to outcome and in dispute become facts in issue.
Ratio	The court will consider only facts raised in pleadings and denied by the other party to determine relevance under .

### Case: " variant="note" /> *(1999)* 196 CLR 297

Element	Detail
Issue	Whether prior consistent statements from sexual assault complainants were relevant.
Rule	Relevance is assessed independently of reliability. If the statement, if believed, could rationally affect a fact in issue, it is relevant.
Application	The prosecution relied on the complainants’ statements made shortly after the alleged assaults. Defence challenged their reliability. The High Court held relevance is not determined by strength or truth, but by potential logical connection.
Conclusion	The statements were admissible under .
Ratio	Relevance focuses on logical connection, not evidentiary strength. Reliability may affect weight, but not threshold admissibility.

### Case: " variant="note" /> *(2001)* 208 CLR 593

Element	Detail
Issue	Whether weak identification evidence (by police) was admissible.
Rule	Weak evidence is not the same as irrelevant evidence; admissibility depends on relevance, not weight.
Application	A police officer gave identification evidence based on limited familiarity with the accused. Although the evidence was not strong, it had some probative value.
Conclusion	The evidence was admissible; weight was a matter for the jury.
Ratio	Weak evidence can still be relevant. The strength of a connection affects weight, not admissibility. Judges should not exclude weak but logically connected evidence.

### Case: *(2018)* 262 CLR 218

Element	Detail
Issue	Was the presence of $120,000 in cash admissible as evidence of drug trafficking?
Rule	Circumstantial evidence is relevant if it contributes to a reasonable inference of a fact in issue.
Application	The High Court found the cash, in combination with other factors (plants at multiple properties), supported an inference of commercial drug trafficking.
Conclusion	The cash evidence was admissible.
Ratio	Circumstantial evidence must be considered cumulatively; each piece adds context and weight to the inference. A single weak point does not preclude relevance.

### Case: *(1967)* 121 CLR 205

Element	Detail
Issue	Whether a complainant’s distress supported an inference of non-consensual sexual activity.
Rule	Inference may be drawn if human experience shows a sufficient connection between fact A (distress) and fact B (lack of consent).
Application	Court accepted that distress shortly after the alleged incident aligned with lack of consent. However, noted other possible explanations existed.
Conclusion	Inference permitted; jury should be directed on limits of such inference.
Ratio	Courts must distinguish inference from speculation. Inference must be grounded in a pattern of human experience, even if it’s not determinative.

### Case: ** [2006] VSCA 80

Element	Detail
Issue	Whether bedwetting was relevant to the question of sexual abuse.
Rule	Behavioural evidence must be supported by expert testimony where it depends on specialised psychological knowledge.
Application	No expert was called to explain the relationship between bedwetting and trauma. The court held that inferences drawn without expert evidence were speculative.
Conclusion	Evidence was inadmissible.
Ratio	Where an inference requires expert knowledge, the failure to provide such a foundation will render it speculative and inadmissible.

### Case: ** [2020] VSCA 34

Element	Detail
Issue	Whether bullets found in the defendant’s vehicle were relevant to drug trafficking charges.
Rule	Evidence is relevant if it could rationally affect the assessment of whether the defendant had intent to traffic.
Application	Bullets were argued to indicate firearm possession, which in turn indicated preparation for drug supply — a common association in drug operations.
Conclusion	Evidence was admissible.
Ratio	The presence of weapons (or related items) may be circumstantial evidence of intent to traffic; relevance upheld if part of a wider inferential chain.

---

Worked Examples

Problem: The Bullet Box ()

Facts
Police discovered 991 grams of methylamphetamine in the front seat of the defendant’s vehicle, and a box of bullets in the passenger door. No firearm was found. The prosecution sought to rely on the bullets as evidence of intent to traffic.

Issue(s)

• Could the bullets support the inference that the defendant intended to traffic drugs?

Lecturer’s Reasoning

• Section 55 test applied: Would the presence of bullets, if accepted, make it more probable that the accused was involved in drug supply?
• Based on human experience, the possession of firearms (or related items) is often associated with organised drug supply, particularly in commercial quantities.
• The bullets do not need to prove the existence of a gun; they contribute circumstantially to a broader inference.

Answer Summary
✓ Evidence admissible. It satisfies by providing a minimal logical connection to the fact in issue (intent to traffic). Arguments about prejudice go to , not relevance.

---

Problem: The Unhappy Marriage ()

Facts
A man was accused of child sexual abuse. The prosecution led evidence that he was in a sexless marriage, implying motive for seeking gratification elsewhere.

Issue(s)

• Is there a logical connection between an unsatisfactory marriage and abuse of a child?
• Does human experience support such an inference?

Lecturer’s Reasoning

• While some courts accept distress or marital dissatisfaction as capable of supporting inferences of sexual misconduct, such connections are tenuous and fraught with risk.
• There were multiple alternative explanations.
• In Neal, the court admitted the evidence, but directed the jury to treat it cautiously.

Answer Summary
✓ Admissible with strong judicial warning. Relevance marginal; prejudice risk high. The inference, while logically possible, lacks strong empirical support.

---

Practical Exam and Study Tips

IRAC Structuring

• Always begin with : Ask whether the evidence, if accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue.
• Identify the fact in issue: Link the evidence to an ultimate, primary, or intermediate fact.
• State the logical connection: How would the evidence assist a reasonable fact finder?
• Distinguish weight from admissibility: Weak or low probative evidence may still be relevant.
• Anticipate exclusions: Relevance ≠ admissibility; apply s–137 if needed.

Memory Aids / Mnemonics

• “Minimum ATAR” = Relevance

  • A – Accept evidence as true
  • T – Threshold is low
  • A – Assess probability, not truth
  • R – Relevance to a fact in issue

• “Inference ≠ Speculation”

  • Ground your argument in Ryan:
    • Step 1: Is inference possible based on human experience?
    • Step 2: Is it the most likely explanation?

• “Proof Needs Path”

  • Evidence must support a logical chain or cable — single weak links may fail unless corroborated.

Warnings

• Don’t confuse “weight” with “relevance”.
• Don’t argue admissibility without first applying .
• Don’t infer without basis — Clay, Hawes, and Neal are cautionary tales.
• Always refer to the exact fact in issue.
• If expert knowledge is required (e.g. bedwetting → trauma), then expert evidence is required.

---

Supplementary Reading and References

Cases Mentioned (AGLC4 Format)

• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (2001) 206 CLR 650.
• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (2002) 76 ALJR 1024.
• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1999) 196 CLR 297.
• <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (2001) 208 CLR 593.
• (2018) 262 CLR 218.
• (1967) 121 CLR 205.
• [2006] VSCA 80.
• [2020] VSCA 34.
• [2011] TASCCA 5.
• (1994) 35 NSWLR 294.
• (1992) 64 A Crim R 462.

Legislation

• (Vic) s–56 (Relevance and Admissibility)
• (Vic) s–137 (Discretionary and mandatory exclusions)

Other Sources

• Judicial College of Victoria, Evidence Bench Book
  https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au
• Anderson, R. et al, (4th ed, 2020)

---

Open Questions or Clarifications

• When should marginal relevance be excluded under versus allowed with warnings?
• How do Victorian courts assess reliability of identification evidence under after Smith?
• When does the presence of cumulative weak evidence reach a tipping point of sufficiency?
• What types of behaviour require expert testimony before allowing inference?

---

End of Notes – Week 1