Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Admissability of common knowledge evidence from another jurisdiction

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 144


Matters of common knowledge


(1)  Proof is not required about knowledge that is not reasonably open to question and is:


      (a)  common knowledge in the locality in which the proceeding is being held or generally; or


      (b)  capable of verification by reference to a document the authority of which cannot reasonably be questioned.


(2)  The judge may acquire knowledge of that kind in any way the judge thinks fit.


(3)  The court (including, if there is a jury, the jury) is to take knowledge of that kind into account.


(4)  The judge is to give a party such opportunity to make submissions, and to refer to relevant information, relating to the acquiring or taking into account of knowledge of that kind as is necessary to ensure that the party is not unfairly prejudiced.


Using part 4 of s 144 of the Evidence Act is it valid to argue that one would be unfairly prejudiced if facts which are reported in  Indian newspapers in respect of corruption and how those funds add to the value of an Indian property are not admitted into evidence?

I would argue that I would be unfairly prejudiced if that relevant information/knowledge was not taken into account.

Newspaper articles are generally regarded as 'hearsay' and as such non-admissable.

How else might one get these facts entered into evidence?

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
Consideration could be given to reputable academic journal articles (i.e. political, public policy, legal). I would also consider looking for official publications of the United Nations especially in the arena of corruption and governance, I am sure that looking through some of the publications of the UNDCP may reveal some good results. 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas
I have found papers as suggested.
Unfortunately they do not delve into the functionality of the sale of property.
I have come across the title of a book book written by a person with a good reputation. This fellowhas written for World Bank etc.
How challenging is it to get a book on corruption and how the funds are untilsed into evidence?
I'd imagine that along with that one would have to establish the credentials of that person with the court. To an extent that is another form of 'common knowledge'?
What I have experienced is that the court wants to 'not exist' when illicit behaviours are involved.
I'm working on having someone whom has transacted a property in India and has evidence as to how the situation is write an affidavit.
I also have had conversations with a credentialed expert witness from the Indian local that could be included in my Evidence in Chief. These conversations embrace the aspects I wish to be included in evidence.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
Davidson & Davidson 2010_FamCA_514-1-10 said
35. The provisions of Division 12A of the Family Law Act 1975 apply to the proceedings. As set out in s.69ZT(1), a number of provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 do not apply. These include the general rules about giving evidence, provisions which deal with documents and proof of contents of documents, and provisions which deal with hearsay, opinion, admissions, evidence of judgments and convictions, tendency and co-incidence, credibility and character. Section 69ZT(2) provides that the court may give such weight (if any) as it thinks fit to evidence admitted as a consequence of a provision of the Evidence Act 1995 not applying.
36. Section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 provides exceptions to the hearsay rule relating to the admissibility of business records. As an exception to the hearsay rule, it is only triggered if the hearsay rule (contained in s.59) applies. It does not apply to these proceedings.
  This suggests to me that regardless of how one can establish that a document is discredited, the court has an out, and can do as it wants. That there is no comeback for one.

Is this the case? Does this only apply in parental hearings?

What means are there to counter this abberation to justice allowing the court to move goalposts?

s 69ZX of FLA said

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 69ZX

Court's general duties and powers relating to evidence

             (1)  In giving effect to the principles in section 69ZN, the court may:

                     (a)  give directions or make orders about the matters in relation to which the parties are to present evidence; and


                     (b)  give directions or make orders about who is to give evidence in relation to each remaining issue; and


                       give directions or make orders about how particular evidence is to be given; and


                     (d)  if the court considers that expert evidence is requiredgive directions or make orders about:

                              (i)  the matters in relation to which an expert is to provide evidence; and


                             (ii)  the number of experts who may provide evidence in relation to a matter; and


                            (iii)  how an expert is to provide the expert's evidence; and


                     (e)  ask questions of, and seek evidence or the production of documents or other things from, parties, witnesses and experts on matters relevant to the proceedings.

             (2)  Without limiting subsection (1) or section 69ZR, the court may give directions or make orders:

                     (a)  about the use of written submissions; or


                     (b)  about the length of written submissions; or


                       limiting the time for oral argument; or


                     (d)  limiting the time for the giving of evidence; or


                     (e)  that particular evidence is to be given orally; or


                      (f)  that particular evidence is to be given by affidavit; or


                     (g)  that evidence in relation to a particular matter not be presented by a party; or


                     (h)  that evidence of a particular kind not be presented by a party; or


                      (i)  limiting, or not allowing, cross‑examination of a particular witness; or


                      (j)  limiting the number of witnesses who are to give evidence in the proceedings.

             (3)  The court may, in child‑related proceedings:

                     (a)  receive into evidence the transcript of evidence in any other proceedings before:

                              (i)  the court; or


                             (ii)  another court; or


                            (iii)  a tribunal;

                            and draw any conclusions of fact from that transcript that it thinks proper; and


                     (b)  adopt any recommendation, finding, decision or judgment of any court, person or body of a kind mentioned in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).

Note:          This subsection may be particularly relevant for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children.

             (4)  The court must not, in proceedings under this Part in which the court is required to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, direct under:

                     (a)  subsection 126B(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 ; or


                     (b)  a law of a State or Territory relating to professional confidential relationship privilege specified in the regulations;

that evidence not be adduced if the court considers that adducing the evidence would be in the best interests of the child.

Last edit: by verdad


What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets