代写BSBLEG417 - Apply the principles of evidence law
19449 Certificate IV in Legal Services
BSBLEG417 - Apply the principles of evidence law
Instructions:
·         All questions are to be attempted
 
·         Include your name and the page number on every page
 
·         Submit answers by email in Microsoft Word with a SIGNED assessment cover sheet
 

Question 1

Scenario
 
Ravi Kakavan, the accused is charged with the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to provisions in the Crimes Act NSW. It is alleged that he severely beat his wife, Elnaz Kakavan, on the verge of River Road, a thoroughfare that runs beside the Nepean river in the outskirts of Sydney on the morning of 25 April 2009.
 
The first witness for the prosecution, Warren Trevoil, testifies that he saw the accused’s utility on the verge of a ditch by the side of the road. He observed both the driver’s and the passenger’s door fully open. He testifies that:
 
“I don’t think there was any serious damage to the vehicle but I saw the accused hunched over on the ground at the rear of the vehicle. I saw the accused raise both arms over his head while holding a block of wood about three feet long.
 
I heard the person who was lying on the ground screaming as if in severe pain. It sounded like a female. I saw the accused strike the woman on the head with the lump of wood about eight times.”
 
Mrs Kakavan is called to testify for the prosecution but she asks the judge to excuse her from testifying on the basis firstly that she is not capable of testifying about this event because she has only a hazy memory of it, and secondly that her understanding of English is not sufficient for the purpose.
 
The defence calls as a witness Dr Craig Brown, a psychiatrist, who testifies that he interviewed the accused on the morning of 29 April 2009 and was told that the accused had been detained for three months by the Iranian police two years earlier and that all he could talk about was the events that occurred during that three month period.
 
Dr Brown testifies that “in my opinion, the accused is suffering from severe post traumatic stress disorder and therefore was not responsible for his actions’.
 
Assignment
 

1. Identify what evidence in the scenario is lay and what is expert Opinion evidence and provide comment on whether the evidence would be admissible or not and why.

 

2. Identify what evidence may be subject to rules regarding competence and compellability of the witnesses and provide comment on whether the evidence may or would not be admitted.

Question 2

 代写BSBLEG417 - Apply the principles of evidence law
Scenario
 
Bancroft (who is not a party to the proceedings) is called to testify for the plaintiffs.
 
·         The second defendant cross-examines Bancroft and poses the question: “Have you ever been convicted of an offence?”
·         In response to that question Bancroft testifies that: “Six months ago I was convicted of an offence of dishonesty.”
·         He is then asked to tell the court the details of that offence. Bancroft states: “In relation to another transaction, I forged the names of the defendants on documents giving me power of attorney for Perriam and Porthos. I used the documents to obtain loans against a property which we owned jointly.”
 
Assignment
 

1. What is the difference between character and creditability.

2. Does the evidence above relate to character or credibility?  Explain your answer.

Question 3

 
Michael Jones, a taxi driver, is on trial in the District Court of NSW charged with the offence of dangerous driving. In the opening address the prosecutor explains that the prosecution will show that Michael Jones picked up five drunken passengers including Rodney Young on the Central Coast and drove them to Redfern. When the taxi reached Redfern the passengers refused to pay and Young threw a bottle at Jones.  Jones then started his taxi, ran down Young and reversed over him before driving away.  Among the other passengers in the car were Larry, Moe and Curly.
 
One of the witnesses called for the prosecution is Larry.  Larry testifies that he was asked to identify the driver of the taxi and did so by examining the photographs on the database containing the license photos of taxi drivers in NSW.
 
Larry is asked: “What did Young say to the taxi driver when you reached your destination.”  He states: “Young told the driver that: ‘We have no money and no intention of paying you, thanks a lot for your time.”
 
Larry is asked to say what happened next and he states that “I took off running, so I don’t know but Curly told me later that ‘’The taxi driver, started his car up and drove over Young”.
 
Assignment
 

1. Identify all the evidential issues in this scenario (there are 2 broad issues with more than 1 element to each issue).

2. Provide comment on those issues, what evidence they relate to and whether the evidence is likely to be admitted or not.

Question 4

Joe has been charged with causing injuries by furious driving under s.53 of the Crimes Act.  Joe says that he was trying to get away from Bob who was trying to shoot him.
 
4.1  What are the elements of the crime of furious driving?
 
4.2  Who has the burden of proof? Comment.
 
4.3  What is the standard of proof?  Comment.
 
Part of the prosecution’s case is that there was an undercover operation in progress that day - the police had a warrant to video suspects in a possible drug deal – coincidentally they also got video of Joe jumping into his car and racing away.
 
4.4  Is this video footage relevant and admissible?  Why/why not?
 
NOTE:  This question has nothing to do with the Roads & Traffic Act or any other road rule related legislation. Any reference to general driving rules will result in an instant fail.  This question is about evidence law only.