Noticeboard
| Published date | 01 July 2013 |
| Date | 01 July 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2013.17.3.432 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
Law reform
Evidence—New Zealand
The New Zealand Law Reform Commission has reported on how the Evidence Act
2006 has operated in its first five years.
The Commission considers that generally the Act is working very well
and is a significant improvement from the previous law, which was
found in court decisions and, as such, could be difficult to access or to
determine at any point in time. There are a relatively small number of
recommendations of a minor nature that the Commission considers
would improve the Act’s operation, and just one significant recom-
mendation for change. That recommendation relates to the
admissibility of previous consistent statements made by witnesses.
The interpretation and application of this provision has proven
difficult. The Commission recommends repealing the provision in
question and leaving the admissibility of such statements to be deter-
mined under the more general rules governing admissibility of
evidence. As the Act has only been in force for five years and some of
the provisions have not been considered or have arisen infrequently
at appellate level, the Commission has taken a cautious approach to
recommending change. For this reason there are a number of areas
where it has recommended that further monitoring be undertaken
before any conclusions about whether change is required are drawn.
Jury directions—Australia
The NSW Law Reform Commission has made recommendations to help jurors
understand directions from the judge in criminal trials. Currently these are
long,complexandframedinlegalterminology and therefore not always helpful.
doi:10.1350/ijep.2013.17.3.432
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF (2013) 17 E&P 295–297 295
To continue reading
Request your trial