Welcome to the Evidence Act 2008


This blog was started back when the Evidence Act 2008 was nothing more than a gleam in Parliament's eye. It was an attempt to further understanding of some challenging new legislation when information about it was difficult to find.

Since then, many authors and luminaries have turned their minds to the complex issues the Act obliges Victorian lawyers to engage with. A blog devoted exclusively to this one piece of legislation isn't necessary, and is impossible for us to give the attention it deserves.

If you're looking for a more conventional blog posting on topical legal issues, have a look at Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? by the same authors.

This site is no substitute for legal advice from an Australian lawyer. If you have a legal problem, it's great that you are doing a bit of research, but go consult a professional.




2009-07-05

79. Exception - opinions based on specialised knowledge

79. Exception - opinions based on specialised knowledge

(1) If a person has specialised knowledge based on the person's training, study or experience, the opinion rule does not apply to evidence of an opinion of that person that is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge.

(2) To avoid doubt, and without limiting subsection (1)-

(a) a reference in that subsection to specialised knowledge includes a reference to specialised knowledge of child development and child behaviour (including specialised knowledge of the impact of sexual abuse on children and their development and behaviour during and following the abuse); and

(b) a reference in that subsection to an opinion of a person includes, if the person has specialised knowledge of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), a reference to an opinion relating to either or both of the following-

(i) the development and behaviour of children generally;

(ii) the development and behaviour of children who have been victims of sexual offences, or offences similar to sexual offences.


In R v Nguyen (Ruling No 1) [2010] VSCA 438, Lasry J ruled that evidence about the effects of the use of amphetamine over a sustained period from Police Medial Officer, Dr Morris Odell, was relevant and admissible specialised knowledge. The submission that the opinion was general and did not relate specifically to the accused (who the witness had not examined) was rejected.

0 comments:

Related Articles


Related Article Widget by Hoctro

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP