Definition of Evidence and its Role in Decision Making

The evidence is stated as the type of exhibitor material, which is represented prior to the court’s jurisdiction or else prior to any different panel authorization in order to hear as well as determine a subject matter. The method of showing facts generally plays a significant role in order to determine a concerned matter. In spite of the importance that is attached to it, various bodies consisting the children have been eliminated and their verification is also not included from structuring an ultimate decision within the concerning subject matter. On the other hand, courts were also constrained through these standards as it assumes the most important job in order to provide a guarantee where adolescents were made sure in some occasion, which might interfere to their development. Subsequent to that, the courts were called for holding prompt towards these principles within some issues, which is determined with an assessment of children in legitimate methods. The companions were also compelled to a particular division that comprises the exploitation of teenagers. Thus, it is most important for a assistance in order to state adjacent to alternate when the law reliably considered the benefits of the children.

The rules of evidence are depicted to be supported for the purpose of justifying the statement as it is stating the evidence must accustom while the dealing is carried out in a wise and understanding way. As per the case of the “Maguire, Evidence: Common Sense and Common Law, at 10-11.”, it is providing the focus on the relevant, probative evidence and the acting of the evidence on the basis of the theories. The rules of the evidence must be simplified and should be structured on the basis of the general characteristic principles so that the judgment of the judge can be easily represented. The two leading principles are depicted to be reflecting the sound characteristics which are depicted to be receiving the logically probative characteristics. As per the “Evidence Act 1898 (NSW) s. 10, added by Evidence (Religious Confessions) Amendment Act 1989 (NSW).” is considered, the example of the hearsay rules is determined in this case which is illustrating the process of recognizing the changes in the business carried out on and also enlisting of the business transactions are recorded. The consideration of the number of the reform bodies are depicted to be differing from the recommendations and also it is conveying the exclusionary rule as it is deliberately added in the form of the extension. The focus on making the improvement in the religious confessions is depicted to be represented under this clause.

The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is reflecting the passing of the 1993 bills into the law in the form of the Evidence Act 1995. It is applied from the year 1995 and also it is found to be standing the committee of attorneys general agreement as per the considerations is undertaken into account. The benefits are gained substantially with bringing the uniformity in the evidence laws as well as the considerations related to the adoption of the reformations are depicted to be contained in the Commonwealth legislation of Western Australia. The application of this Act is depicted to be illustrating the implementation in the federal courts present in Western Australia. The considerations are related to the development of the activities which are reflecting the favorable evidence. This favorable evidence is depicted to be framed as per the forum shopping cases and also are reflecting the development of the uniformity in the procedural rules of the uniform evidence. The differences in the procedural rules of the evidence are depicted to be reflecting the motivation for the purpose of carrying out the substantive laws which itself is found to be defining the civil actions or the crime.  

Importance of Rules and Procedures of Evidence

The law of evidence can be called as a part of the evidence that can be brought to solve a particular issue before a court. In the case of Western Australia, there is much law of evidence is exists. This law of evidence is consists of certain judicial principles which is known as common law. These judicial principles are being found in the Evidence Act 1906. the principles of common law can be identified across the jurisdiction of Australia. In this case, it has been seen that the formulation and scope of statutory provisions are varying from one state to another. The necessity to adopt the statutory provisions for the law of evidence should be evaluated in a significant manner. According to the Evidence Act 1906 sec 3, an Act must include ordinance. In this section, the court means the district court, the high court and the Supreme Court of Australia. Criminal Investigating Act 2006 comes into action on a certain time fixed by proclamation. The days have been fixed under the subsection that can be valid for different provisions. The punishment and judicially procedures have been depended on basis of the criminal conspiracy.            

As per the case of “R. v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal ex-pane Bott”, it is reflecting that the permit of the cross-examination of the doctors is depicted to be declined as per the tribunal of Western Australia received the medical report on the Bott’s condition. It is reflecting the inappropriate decisions as undertaken by the tribunal in this case. It is also indicating that the evidence used is found to be against the Bott’s condition and due to this reason, it is reflecting the inappropriate development of the decision making processes as it is identified in this study. In the case of the “Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs”, the disregards are depicted to be carried out for the materials and the factions which are found for each of the cases. The desirable flexibility in the development of the inappropriate decision-making processes is seen in this study as well as it is reflecting the appropriate development of the discussions by which the changes in the evidence reception processes are seen. Thus it is found to be supporting the case of the “Hughes CJ said in Consolidated Edison Co v National Labour Relations Board (1938) 305 US 197, 229” which is illustrating the inappropriate depart of the rules and the regulations as identified in this study.         

In order to make any verdict, some entities are not bound by the rules of evidence. It is evident that the administrative decision-makers are not usually bound by the rules of evidence. However, this specific procedural flexibility does not imply that the entire rules of evidence can be ignored. It does not free the judge or decision makers from the responsibility to make the fact findings based on the materials, which is rationally probative. The rules of evidence may provide effective guidance to the administrative decision makers in procedures of making effective verdicts within their statutory functions. Hence, it can be stated that however, the common law rules of evidence like the Briginshaw principle is not compulsory need, which the AAT is needed to use but the rules of evidence are often useful to discharge appropriate verdict in a case.

The Use of Rules of Evidence in Legislation and Cases

The normal rule in the administrative scheduled is that nobody requires to persuade the judge to make a specific decision owing to the inquisitorial nature of the administrative procedures. Actually, the empirical burden of proof will normally fall to the applicants as they are usually the most important source of information on which the application is based.  The standard of proof is considered as the guide for the decision makers and according to this, the decision makers decide whether the evidence before them support the findings of the facts.

The interaction of the aforementioned general principles was currently placed squarely in front of the Federal Court in case of Sulivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The court dismissed the argument of the appellants that the AAT had made a mistake owing to its alleged non-compliance with the rules of common law in Briginshaw as well as Broane v Dunn.

The verdict is relevant to dealings in the other administrative panel, provided that the provisions are comparable to s 33(1) © of the AAT Act as well as it can be seen in number of other pieces of the legislation of Commonwealth inclusive of the Migration Act 1958, the Quarantine Act 1908, the National Health Act 1953, the Defense Force Discipline Act 1982 as well as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001.

The rules in Briginshaw has been derived from the verdict of the High Court in the case of Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60CLR 336 as well as concerns the standards of persuasion needed at the time of the judge makes a fact-finding. The particular case was concerned with the standard of evidence or proof to b used in a petition for divorce based on adultery under the Marriage Act 1928 (Vic). The Court apprehended that these issues were not be taken into account lightly as well as were not the matter to be solved by the inexact evidence or proof, indefinite testimony or else indirect inference. However, the rule gives legislative identification in s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and that provision does not use to proceed before the AAT.

The rules in the case of Browne v Dunn have been derived from the observation by Lord Herschell in the case Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 at 70-71. However, it is subject to numbers of qualifications as well as expectations and the rule necessarily needs a witness to cross-examine in adversarial lawsuit to place to that specific witness the nature of this case based on which the cross-examiner’s consumer proposes to believe or rely in the disagreement of the witness.          

In R. v War Oensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal exparte Bott, the panel got as well as read a report concerned with the medical condition of Bott and refused to allow cross-examination of the doctors. The base of an application for the mandamus inclusive of the evidence utilized against Bott was not on pledge as well as witness doctors were nor reproduced for the cross-examination. The majority release the order nisi.  Hence, however, the tribunal is not bound by the same rules of evidence but still bound by some other rules.

Conclusion: 

The overall discussion is reflecting the appropriate discussion on the laws of the Evidence Acts with relevant cases. The corruption is found to be exclusively present the provision of the rules of the evidence as well as the inappropriate identification of the sense of the dealing is seen. Apart from these rules, the focus on achieving the set of the objective is depicted to be reflecting the appropriate administration of the activities in a prerequisite way and also the precedent-based laws were appropriately included with providing support for carrying out the authentication process. The necessity for the purpose of demonstrating the customer benefits is depicted to be focused in this study. Apart from this, the corruption in the minister levels and the child abuse processes carried out in the form of the legal proceedings are depicted to be supporting the appropriate identification of the activities as per the interest is seen. Thus, the appropriate supporting processes are seen which is related to the development of the statute creep evidences and also is found to be reflecting the appropriate presentation of the evidence processes with supporting justification and procedures.   

References:

Bai, Billy, Rob Law, and Ivan Wen, “The Impact Of Website Quality On Customer Satisfaction And Purchase Intentions: Evidence From Chinese Online Visitors” (2008) 27(3) International Journal of Hospitality Management

Baltagi, Badi H., Panicos O. Demetriades and Siong-Hook Law, “Financial Development And Openness: Evidence From Panel Data” [2008] SSRN Electronic Journal

Bar News, Dispensing With The Rules Of Evidence (2013) Classic.austlii.edu.au <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/1990/54.pdf>

Barker, David, Essential Australian Law (Routledge/Cavendish, 2007)

Cozens, Paul and Marc Tarca, “Exploring Housing Maintenance And Vacancy In Western Australia” (2016) 34(3) Property Management

Cozens, Paul and Shane Grieve, “Situational Crime Prevention At Nightclub Entrances In Perth, Western Australia: Exploring Micro-Level Crime Precipitators” (2014) 16(1) Crime Prevention and Community Safety

Danidou, Yianna and Burkhard Schafer, “Trusted Computing And The Digital Crime Scene” (2014) 8(0) Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review

Davidson, Alan, The Law Of Electronic Commerce (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

Disher, Garry, Chain Of Evidence (Wheeler Pub., 2008)

Dwyer, Guy, “Emerging Legislative Regimes For Regulating Carbon Capture And Storage Activities In Australia: To What Extent Do They Facilitate Access To Procedural Justice?” [2014] SSRN Electronic Journal

Grobler, Marthie, “The Need For Digital Evidence Standardisation” (2012) 4(2) International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics

Harvey, Callie, Cornerstones Of Australian Law (Tilde University Press, 2009)

Ingles, David, “Does Australia Need An Annual Wealth Tax? (And Why Do We Now Apply One Only To Pensioners)” [2016] SSRN Electronic Journal

Marjit, Sugata, Biswajit Mandal, and Suryadipta Roy, “Trade Openness, Corruption And Factor Abundance: Evidence From A Dynamic Panel” (2014) 18(1) Review of Development Economics

Millsoakley, To What Extent Do Rules Of Evidence Apply To Administrative Proceedings? | Mills Oakley (2014) Millsoakley.com.au <https://www.millsoakley.com.au/the-application-of-common-law-rules-of-evidence-in-administrative-proceedings-some-recent-updates/>

Sheehan, Rosemary, “Vulnerable Children And The Law (2012)