LAW20009 Week 3: Week 3 Collab Notes
Week 3 – Proof and Presumptions
Section titled “Week 3 – Proof and Presumptions”Subject: LAW20009 – Evidence Law Lecturer: Alana Ray Date: Week 3 (specific date not provided) Materials: Transcript + Slides
Overview
Section titled “Overview”Topic Summary This week explores how parties prove facts in legal proceedings. It covers the allocation of the legal and evidential burden of proof, the standard of proof in civil and criminal matters, the rational hypothesis test for circumstantial evidence, and legal presumptions. The lecture builds from foundational principles like Woolmington and Briginshaw and applies them to hypothetical criminal and civil scenarios.
Key Concepts and Legal Doctrines
Section titled “Key Concepts and Legal Doctrines”1. Burden of Proof
Section titled “1. Burden of Proof”- Legal burden (aka persuasive burden): Obligation to prove a fact in issue to the required standard.
- Evidential burden: Obligation to raise sufficient evidence to make an issue contestable.
In criminal proceedings:
- The prosecution bears the legal burden for each element of the offence.
- The accused may bear evidential burdens (e.g., raising a defence).
In civil proceedings:
- The party asserting a fact bears the legal and evidential burden unless statute provides otherwise.
IRAC: Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
Section titled “IRAC: Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462”| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issue | Who bears the burden of proof in criminal trials? |
| Rule | Prosecution must prove all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The burden rarely shifts. |
| Application | In Woolmington, the defendant claimed accidental killing. The court held the Crown bore the burden to disprove accident. |
| Conclusion | Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Ratio | The golden thread of English criminal law is that it is always for the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt oai_citation:0‡LAW20009 Week 3 Collab Slides.pdf. |
2. Standard of Proof
Section titled “2. Standard of Proof”- Criminal: Beyond reasonable doubt
- Not mathematical certainty
- Estimated to require ~90–95% certainty
- Civil: Balance of probabilities
- “More likely than not” (
) - Briginshaw clarifies how evidentiary strength varies with seriousness
- “More likely than not” (
IRAC: <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1938) 60 CLR 336
Section titled “IRAC: <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1938) 60 CLR 336”| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issue | How should courts evaluate serious allegations in civil cases? |
| Rule | The civil standard remains “balance of probabilities”, but stronger evidence is required for more serious or improbable allegations. |
| Application | In Briginshaw, allegations of adultery required greater scrutiny because of their serious reputational consequences. |
| Conclusion | Judges must consider gravity, likelihood, and consequences when evaluating evidence. |
| Ratio | The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities oai_citation:1‡LAW20009 Week 3 Collab Slides.pdf. |
3. Circumstantial Evidence
Section titled “3. Circumstantial Evidence”- Definition: Evidence from which inferences must be drawn.
- Test: The prosecution must exclude any rational hypothesis consistent with innocence.
- Models:
- Links in a chain – all must hold
- Strands in a cable – strength from accumulation
IRAC: (1984) 153 CLR 521
Section titled “IRAC: (1984) 153 CLR 521”| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issue | When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a criminal conviction? |
| Rule | The jury must be satisfied that all rational explanations consistent with innocence have been excluded. |
| Application | The High Court held the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the rational hypothesis rule. |
| Conclusion | Conviction overturned. Alternative explanations (e.g., dingo attack) not excluded. |
| Ratio | In a circumstantial case, the Crown must eliminate all rational hypotheses inconsistent with guilt oai_citation:2‡LAW20009 Week 3 Collab Slides.pdf. |
IRAC: <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1990) 170 CLR 573
Section titled “IRAC: <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1990) 170 CLR 573”| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issue | How should intermediate facts be treated in a circumstantial case? |
| Rule | If an intermediate fact is essential to guilt, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Application | Trial judges must assess whether conviction could stand without that piece of evidence. |
| Conclusion | Essential facts require the same standard as the ultimate issue. |
| Ratio | A fact forming an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning to guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt oai_citation:3‡LAW20009 Week 3 Collab Slides.pdf. |
Presumptions and Judicial Notice
Section titled “Presumptions and Judicial Notice”Presumptions
Section titled “Presumptions”- Conclusive: Cannot be rebutted
- Rebuttable (law): Displaced by contrary evidence
- Rebuttable (fact): Based on experience and may be challenged
Examples:
- Regularity (people obey the law)
- Sanity
- Continuity of state
Judicial Notice
Section titled “Judicial Notice”: No need to prove obvious facts (e.g., calendar dates, time zones, internet exists) - Two categories: common knowledge and readily verifiable facts
Worked Examples
Section titled “Worked Examples”Worked Example: Brett (Criminal – Circumstantial)
Section titled “Worked Example: Brett (Criminal – Circumstantial)”| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issue | Has the prosecution discharged the legal burden using circumstantial evidence? |
| Rule | Must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt (Woolmington), and exclude all rational hypotheses consistent with innocence (Chamberlain). |
| Application | Prosecution presented motive, blood, fingerprints. Brett’s explanations raised reasonable alternatives (e.g., blood from cartons). |
| Conclusion | Case to answer exists, but jury must apply Chamberlain test. |
| Ratio | Evidence must exclude all reasonable alternatives for a circumstantial case to support conviction oai_citation:4‡LAW20009 Week 3 Collab Slides.pdf. |
Worked Example: (Civil Negligence)
Section titled “Worked Example: (Civil Negligence)”| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issue | Has the plaintiff proved negligence on the balance of probabilities, considering serious consequences? |
| Rule | Plaintiff bears burden to prove breach, causation, and loss. For serious allegations, Briginshaw applies. |
| Application | Traffic signage disputed; testimony conflicted; phone call and prior conviction weighed against credibility issues. |
| Conclusion | Unclear outcome. Depends on whether plaintiff’s case satisfies the Briginshaw threshold for seriousness. |
| Ratio | Serious civil allegations require greater scrutiny, but not a higher standard of proof oai_citation:5‡LAW20009 Week 3 Collab Slides.pdf. |
Practical Exam and Study Tips
Section titled “Practical Exam and Study Tips”Structure
- Use IRAC
- Always distinguish legal vs evidential burden
- Don’t confuse “standard of proof” with strength of evidence
- Apply “rational hypothesis” clearly in circumstantial cases
- Explain why alternative explanations are/aren’t reasonable
Common Pitfalls
- Applying “balance of probabilities” rigidly without Briginshaw
- Failing to articulate when intermediate facts must meet criminal standard (Shepherd)
- Neglecting to apply holistic assessment of all evidence (Chamberlain)
Supplementary Reading and References
Section titled “Supplementary Reading and References”Cases
- Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
- <Badge text="
" variant=“note” /> (1938) 60 CLR 336 (1984) 153 CLR 521 - <Badge text="
" variant=“note” /> (1990) 170 CLR 573
Legislation
(Vic) (Vic)
Open Questions or Clarifications
Section titled “Open Questions or Clarifications”- How does
codify the Briginshaw principle in practice? - Can the chain vs cable model be reconciled with the modern holistic approach?
- When does an evidential burden become a practical necessity for the defence?