LWZ316 Evidence Law

LWZ316 Evidence Law 2017 ASSIGNMENT Word length: 2,500 – 3,000 words (3,000 being the absolute maximum). 1 The word limit does not include footnotes (unless footnotes contain discussion which, in the opinion of the marker, should be in the body of the assignment). The word limit also does not include a bibliography. A bibliography is not required but may be included. The policy for extensions and deductions for exceeding the word limit may be found in the Assignment and Extension Policy available on Law Central. 2 The case is available on LWZ316 Evidence Learnline site under Tutorial Materials week 3. Weighting: 40% (of total marks for Unit; ie, 40/100 marks). This assignment requires you to answer the Assignment Question below. Your answer should be supported comprehensively by relevant legal authorities, including legislation, case law, law reform commission reports, journal articles and texts. Assignment Question: Background information In Rittman & Rittman [2012] FamCAFC 151 at [122], the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia rejected the appellant’s submission that the trial judge had erred when stating that, “[t]he rule of Browne v [Dunn] hardly applies in an age where we have trial by affidavit”. The Full Court held at [127] that the “trial Judge’s analysis of the rule [in Browne v Dunn] as it applies in a trial where evidence is given by affidavit is, in our view, entirely apt”. Not all legal practitioners accept that this view is correct. Assignment question With reference to the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67,2 the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), the common law and other relevant authorities, explain the scope of the rule in Browne v Dunn and discuss what application, if any, the rule has in a trial where the evidence-in-chief is given by affidavit.