About the webinar

SUBSTANTIVE LAW

CPD Points: 1.5

In determining whether challenged evidence is admissible, the trial judge is often required to assess its probative value. The orthodox view is that this assessment focuses on the strength of connection between the challenged evidence and the fact in issue. However, a distinct strand of High Court jurisprudence, running through the common law and the uniform evidence legislation – from Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 through Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303 to TL v The King (2022) 96 ALJR 1072 – requires a holistic approach to probative value. That is, the trial judge should assess the contribution of the challenged evidence together with other evidence. The High Court’s occasional holism introduces incoherence and uncertainty into the law. The interventionism of this approach may be prompted by concern over the prejudicial risks of propensity evidence; however, holism does not necessarily provide added protection. The High Court’s holism appears to be more the product of fallacious reasoning and inattention to the logic of proof. And it carries the risk that the trial judge, at the admissibility stage, will trespass on the jury’s fact-finding province. 

Presenter:  Professor David Hamer, University of Sydney Law School

CPD accreditation

Information for lawyers and barristers

If this educational activity is relevant to your professional development and practice of the law, then you should claim 1.5 MCLE/CPD points per webinar or 12 units for the full series. Practitioners are advised to check with the CPD governing body in their jurisdiction for the most accurate and up-to-date information. Find out about interstate accreditation. 

Prerequisites

None

Delivery style

This is an online webinar. Once enrolled, you will be provided a link to the recording and can watch on demand.

Full series registration

CLICK HERE to register for the full series (8 webinars)

Further enquiries

• T +61 2 9351 0248
• E law.events@sydney.edu.au