Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The Impact on s138 of the Evidence Act 1995. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 12 page paper consider s138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) or (CTH) and critically discusses how this section of legislation and cases such as Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 and Ridgeway v Queen (1995) 129 AR 41 impact on operational investigations and their officers. Numerous cases are cited to illustrate points raised. This paper relates to Australian law. The bibliography cites 10 sources.
Page Count:
12 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEevidence.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
complexity with which they may be committed. For law enforcement officers trying to catch these offenders the job can become very difficult, and the borderline between what can and cannot
be done to capture and prove the guilt of criminals can be ambiguous. In Australia section 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) or (CTH) is worth noting. This is
the section that deals with the difficult position of what evidence can and cannot be presented. However, the statute may be seen as formalising what had already been set in
common law though the cases of Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 and Ridgeway (1995) 184 CLR 19. For a law enforcement officers these have each develop the guidelines
when collecting evidence, but it must be realised that under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (The Act), there is no clear cut answer, as there is still discretion
given to the judiciary regarding what is and is not allowed to be admitted. Section 138 states " (1) Evidence that was obtained:
(a) improperly or in contravention of an Australian law; or (b) in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention
of an Australian law; is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way
in which the evidence was obtained" (Evidence Act 1995) Therefore the default position is where evidence has been obtained illegally it should excluded, but there is the maim to
find a balance, which is at the judges discretion. For example, where it may be in the public interest to include it or it may be very difficult to obtain
...