Subject Index
| Published date | 01 October 2007 |
| Date | 01 October 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2007.11.4.357 |
| Subject Matter | Subject Index |
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 357
SUBJECT INDEX
ABE (achieving best evidence) interviews. 11–12
abuse of process
improperlyobtained evidence. . . . . . . 83–86,
202–205
adjournments
small claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
admissibility of evidence
discreditable behaviourevidence . . 134–138
hearsay evidence
common enterpriseexception . . 106–133
judge’s gate-keepingfunction . .145–146
necessity criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . 215–216
principled approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220
reliability criterion. . . . . . . . . . . . 216–220
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
spousal incompetencerule . . . . . 337–340
improperlyobtained evidence . . . . . .75–105,
181–212
post-hypnosisevidence . . . . . . . . . . . 224–227
third-party confessions. . . . . . . . . . . . 318–321
admissions, doctrine of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116–117
adversarial model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154–155
advice, legal
small claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44–45, 47
agency theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108–113
Anton Piller orders
solicitor–client privilegeand . . . . . . . . 57–58
appeals
lurking doubt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236–237
attorney–client privilege
waiverby companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Australia
delayedcomplaint of rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
disclosure ofjury note tocounsel . . 232–234
false confessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
improperlyobtained evidence . . . 86–94, 104
juries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147–148,348
legislativefact evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
privilege againstself-incrimination . . . 329–
333
standard of proof
application to discretionary
decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
intermediate facts . . . . . . . . . . . . 234–236
waiver of legal professional
privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144–145,148
balancing, theory of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185–187
breach of contracts for services
reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45–46,47
small claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30–35, 38,40, 44
burden of proof
reference classesand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250–253
reverse-onus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221–224
Canada
admissibility ofhearsay evidence . . 145–146,
213–220
civil justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
common enterprise exception
agency theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,111
furtherance requirement . . . . . . 121, 122
independent evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118–119
out-of-court statements . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
pendency requirement . . . . . . . . 125–126
extra-territorial application
ofCharter rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . .343–344
improperlyobtained evidence . . . 94–99, 104
juries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141–142,348
legislativefact evidence . . . . . . . . . . . 227–228
litigation privilege. . . 49–56,58–60, 322–328
miscarriages ofjustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
new EvidenceAct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
post-hypnosisevidence . . . . . . . . . . . 224–227
solicitor–client privilege
absolute necessitytest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
difference between
litigation privilegeand . . . . . . . 51, 59
exceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54–55
right to select counsel of
one’s choiceand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57–58
spousal incompetencerule . . . . . . . . 337–340
summing-up ofevidence . . . . . . . . . . 345–347
voluntariness ofconfessions . . . . . . .231–232
Carofiglio, Gianrico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348–349
case assessment
reference classesand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289–290
CCTV link see live link
children’s evidence
juror perceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147–148
live link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 13–15
video-recorded interviews . . . . . . . . . . . 11–12
civil justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
civil standard of proof
reference classesand . . . . . . . . . . . . 287–288,
293, 304–305, 316
co-accused
admissibility ofconfessions and. . . . 318–321
co-conspirators exception . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–133
common enterprise exception . . . . . . . . 106–133
compatibility of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259
confessions
false. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
‘mixedstatements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
third-party. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318–321
To continue reading
Request your trial