CLE presentation: Adducing evidence at a trial in 2016 what are the pitfalls for barristers and solicitors? Philip Solomon QC.

Transcription

1 CLE presentation: Adducing evidence at a trial in 2016 what are the pitfalls for barristers and solicitors? Philip Solomon QC 14 September 2016

2 Evidence Act 2008, s Relevant evidence (1) The evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding. (2) In particular, evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to (a) the credibility of a witness; or (b) the admissibility of other evidence; or (c) a failure to adduce evidence.

3 Evidence Act 2008, s The hearsay rule exclusion of hearsay evidence (1) Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation (2) Such a fact is in this Part referred to as an asserted fact. (2A) For the purposes of determining under subsection (1) whether it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert a particular fact by the representation, the court may have regard to the circumstances in which the representation was made.

4 However, a representation may be admitted if relevant for a purpose other than proof of the asserted fact. (Colloquially, use for a non-hearsay purpose.) In particular, a non-hearsay purpose includes adducing a representation to prove the knowledge either of the maker of the representation; or the person to whom the representation was made.

5 The focus is on a representation, not on a document. This dichotomy may not matter much in practice, or in substance, but it is relevant in evaluation.

6 Evidence Act, s.69(1) and (2) 69 Exception business records (1) This section applies to a document that (a) either (i) is or forms part of the records belonging to or kept by a person, body or organisation in the course of, or for the purposes of, a business; or (ii) at any time was or formed part of such a record; and (b) contains a previous representation made or recorded in the document in the course of, or for the purposes of, the business.

7 Evidence Act, s.69(1) and (2) (2) The hearsay rule does not apply to the document (so far as it contains the representation) if the representation was made (a) by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact; or (b) on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact.

8 The crux: This is invariably the crux of a hearsay fight. The party seeking to tender [a document/representation] will contend that it is [/is contained in] a document which comprises a business record.

9 Provenance: A critical issue, and usually the first issue, involves consideration of a document s provenance the issue at s.69(1)(a)(i). This is a focus of my talk. What does a party seeking to tender a document need to do to establish that the document forms part of the records belonging to a business?

10 Provenance should be uncontroversial I want to propose tonight that the position in Victoria has essentially been settled by the judgment of J Forrest J in Matthews v SPI Electricity (Ruling No. 35) [2014] VSC 59. His Honour focused on ss.48, 55 and 58 of the Evidence Act.

11 Evidence Act 2008, s.48(1) 48 Proof of contents of documents (1) A party may adduce evidence of the contents of a document in question by tendering the document in question or by any one or more of the following methods (a) adducing evidence of an admission made by another party to the proceeding as to the contents of the document in question;

12 Evidence Act 2008, s.48(1) (b) tendering a document that (i) is or purports to be a copy of the document in question; and (ii) has been produced, or purports to have been produced, by a device that reproduces the contents of documents;

13 Evidence Act 2008, s.48(1) (e) tendering a document that (i) forms part of the records of or kept by a business (whether or not the business is still in existence); and (ii) is or purports to be a copy of, or an extract from or a summary of, the document in question, or is or purports to be a copy of such an extract or summary;

14 Evidence Act 2008, s Inferences as to relevance (1) If a question arises as to the relevance of a document or thing, the court may examine it and may draw any reasonable inference from it, including an inference as to its authenticity or identity. (2) Subsection (1) does not limit the matters from which inferences may properly be drawn.

15 The Judgment in Matthews: [30] I reject this submission. In my opinion neither the decision in Rich nor Air New Zealand require such rigorous proof. I accept that in this case, where the documents are tendered as emanating from the business records of an organisation, it is necessary to establish that the documents are authentic or genuine records of that organisation to trigger the exception to the hearsay rule set out in s 69 of the Evidence Act.

16 The Judgment in Matthews: [31] As will be seen in a moment, this is a case in which a document on its face can be inferred to be authentic and relevant. Section 58 does not mandate any additional requirement. In this case the additional factor (if it is necessary, which I doubt) is the terms of the subpoena addressed to each of the companies.

17 The Judgment in Matthews: [32] Consistent with the decision in Air New Zealand, a combination of s 55 and s 58 of the Evidence Act enables a court to examine the document itself and then determine whether it is authentic absent other evidence. So for the purpose of this application it is appropriate to examine each of the documents and the surrounding circumstances of their production and draw appropriate inferences, where applicable, as to:

18 The Judgment in Matthews: (a) how the document came to be adduced in evidence; (b) whether it was a document prepared by one of the companies; (c) whether it was a document prepared by one of the companies for the purpose of its business; (d) whether the contents of the document form part of the records of the business;

19 The Judgment in Matthews (e) whether the documents contain statements relevant to the proceeding made in the course of or for the purpose of the business; (f) whether the representation contained in the document was made by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact relied upon; and (g) whether the representation was made on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact.

20 Provenance - conclusion The essence of the approach of J Forrest J is to treat s.69(1)(a)(i) of the Evidence Act 2008 leniently. The Court can review the document and be satisfied that it comprises a business record by its style, its contents, and the like. Further, and relevantly, documents produced by the adversary under discovery, or by a third party under a subpoena, can be treated especially leniently.

21 The real issue s.69(2): Once s.69(1) is satisfied, the focus shifts to the requirements of s.69(2). Each representation needs to be considered individually evaluated, through the prism of s.69(2). See Lancaster v The Queen (2014) 44 VR 820 at [21].

22 s.69(2) proof: In ANZ v Oswal, there were 900 documents put in issue, for hearsay. That involved 900 separate representations. It may not be possible in every matter, but in Oswal a team evaluated every document; and made a call on every representation. A spreadsheet was prepared. The following information was collected in the spreadsheet: the relevant business; the representation; the maker of the representation; matters going to knowledge.

23 Identifying each representation: The time-consuming exercise is to identify each representation. A representation is not the statement contained in an (or other document). Representations may be to the following effect: person X was the CEO of a company; the sum of $1 million was urgently needed; X was indebted to Y in an amount of $Z X approved payment of an amount; X required a car to be registered in a particular name.

24 Identifying each representation: This is obviously time-consuming. It is certainly time-consuming when the relevant representation is contained in an uncontroversial . It may be expected that, in 2016, with supervision and case management, this would not in the usual case be required or expected.

25 Evidence Act 2008, s.81(1) The hearsay rule does not apply to first hand evidence of an admission. An admission comprises a representation previously made that is adverse to the parties interest in the outcome of the proceeding. There is a degree of breadth in this definition, and it is suitable for consideration in seeking to have admitted into evidence a particular representation.

26 Evidence Act 2008, s.66a 66A Exception contemporaneous statements about a person's health etc. The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation made by a person if the representation was a contemporaneous representation about the person's health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind.

27 Evidence Act 2008, s.66a It is necessary to establish that the maker s state of mind is directly relevant to a fact in issue, not merely inferentially so. See: Karam v The Queen [2015] VSCA 50.

28 Evidence Act 2008, s.190(3) (3) In a civil proceeding, the court may order that any one or more of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) do not apply in relation to evidence if (a) the matter to which the evidence relates is not genuinely in dispute; or (b) the application of those provisions would cause or involve unnecessary expense or delay.

29 CLE presentation: Adducing evidence at a trial in 2016 what are the pitfalls for barristers and solicitors? Philip Solomon QC 14 September 2016