Discuss the manner in which the objections should have been dealt with at trial.

In the context of this question students were asked to discuss the way in which the objections were handled.

The first objection was to the use of an interpreter and as described the ruling was on a basis not provided for by s. 30 of the Evidence Act. Most students handled this well, some went further to indicate that the ruling might have been justified on the basis that the witness’ English was adequate although ungrammatical.

The second objection was to the introduction of the admission evidence. Candidates are expected in such a context to start by acknowledging that an admission is hearsay and defining that term before turning to s. 81. A limited number of candidates dealt with the issue of the probative value of the admission.

The third objection related to the use of tendency and coincidence evidence. Admission of such evidence even in civil cases (and this was a civil case) is governed by s. 97 and 98 but s. 101 is not applicable. A few candidates incorrectly dealt with this problem as though it was a criminal case.

The final objection raised the issue of the duty to cross-examine, the rule in Browne v Dunn and s. 46 Evidence Act it was generally well handled.