Page 4850 - Week 15 - Thursday, 16 December 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

-3-

THAN ONE JURISDICTION, AND FOR INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE BASED IN ONE JURISDICTION AND BECOME INVOLVED IN LITIGATION IN ANOTHER.

AND BECAUSE MUCH OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN EACH JURISDICTION IS CONTAINED IN THE COMMON LAW -THAT IS, THE BODY OF LAW DEVELOPED BY THE COURTS - THAT LAW IS UNCERTAIN AND RELATIVELY INACCESSIBLE. AS A RESULT, MOST PEOPLE WHO BECOME INVOLVED IN LITIGATION FIND IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN COURT.

IN ADDITION, THE STATE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE ACROSS AUSTRALIA IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL LEGAL PROFESSION. THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE OF EACH JURISDICTION ARE HIGHLY COMPLEX AND TECHNICAL. IT IS A DAUNTING PROSPECT FOR A LEGAL PRACTITIONER WHO WISHES TO PRACTICE IN THE COURTS OF SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS TO MASTER A SERIES OF DIFFERENT AND SOMETIMES CONFLICTING LAWS OF EVIDENCE.

IN ITS INTERIM REPORT IN 1985 THE LAW REFORM

COMMISSION CONFIRMED THAT THERE WERE ENORMOUS

DIFFERENCES IN THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE BETWEEN THE

VARIOUS AUSTRALIAN JURISDICTIONS, WHICH WERE

CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF LITIGATION

ACCORDING TO THE STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH THE

TRIAL WAS HELD. IT SAID IT HAD ALSO FOUND SIGNIFICANT

4850

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .