EVIDENCE – admissibility – hearsay evidence – identification of accused by person unknown – evidence not admissible
WORKERS COMPENSATION – Workers Compensation Commission – Arbitrator’s decision – appeal to Presidential Member – error of law – whether no evidence to support finding that respondent injured while working for appellant – whether arbitrator answered wrong question in situation where possibility injury occurred at two workplaces
WORKERS COMPENSATION – procedure – s 354 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence – arbitrator required to draw conclusions from material that is satisfactory in probative sense – where respondent’s credit impugned – whether arbitrator entitled to rely on expert reports where medical history respondent gave experts differed from evidence accepted by arbitrator
WORKERS COMPENSATION – procedure – procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence – Workers Compensation Commission Rules -evidence required to be logical and probative, relevant to facts in issue and issues in dispute, not based on speculation or unsubstantiated assumptions, not in form of unqualified opinions – not a reintroduction of rules of evidence
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – s 354 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – procedures before Commission not governed by rules of evidence – Workers Compensation Commission Rules – evidence required to be logical and probative, relevant to facts in issue and issues in dispute, not based on speculation or unsubstantiated assumptions, not in form of unqualified opinions – rules not to be construed in manner inconsistent with statute
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – in general and right of appeal – leave to appeal out of time – principles on which leave should be granted – explanation for delay – whether miscarriage of justice – leave refused.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – practice and procedure – when time for appeal begins to run in criminal matters – Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Div 5.4.7 – meaning of conviction.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – practice and procedure – cross appeal – whether conviction appeal can be cross-appeal against sentence appeal – need for fresh appeal.
8 The foregoing general positions of, respectively, the Crown and the accused having been established, application was made for a series of hearings on the voir dire to the end of testing the admissibility in the Crown case at trial of various pieces of evidence. Voir dire hearings were granted accordingly, and all of them were dealt with by way of documentary evidence. In all, sixteen separate such hearings were conducted. Eleven of those hearings concerned evidence which the Crown seeks to have admitted as tendency evidence; a further four hearings concerned hearsay evidence which the Crown seeks to have admitted as relationship evidence; and one hearing concerned admissions made by the accused to investigating police.
CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – assault – damage to property – discrepancies between evidence of complainants – identification evidence not reliable to establish accused’s involvement – prosecution evidence did not exclude alibi raised – reasonable doubt as to accused’s presence at the relevant occasions and times of the alleged incident – accused not guilty on all charges.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Pt 3.2, ss 65(1), 65(3), 116(1)(a), 116(1) (b), 165(1) (b), 190
Magistrates – Jurisdiction and procedure generally – Procedure – Orders and convictions – Particular orders – Other orders – Family violence orders – Interim order – Form of Application – Admissibility of evidence.
Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas), ss15, 16 and 23.
Aust Dig 
Evidence - Evidence Act 1995 – material admissible as “first hand” hearsay – whether general discretion to exclude evidence because its probative value is outweighted by the danger it might be unfairly prejudicial should be exercised – prejudice likely to be suffered by reason of admission of evidence not “unfair”.
Evidence Act 1995 , s135, Division 2 of Part 3.2
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Consent by Minister to institution of criminal proceedings under Corporations Law – proceedings instituted more than five years after alleged criminal conduct – whether Minister failed to take into account relevant considerations – whether Minister obliged to give person who might be charged an opportunity to be heard before decision made whether to consent.
Corporations Law s 1316
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Part 3.2, s 67, s 190(3)