Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
Issued: 8 March 2021
Download PDF (PDF, 129.6 KB)
In assessing the probative value of unlawfully or improperly obtained evidence for the purposes of s. 138 of the Evidence Act 1995, the court should take the evidence at its highest.
Unless the tribunal of fact could not rationally accept the evidence, reliability should not be taken into account in the assessment of probative value.
In deciding whether improperly or illegally obtained evidence may be admitted under s. 138(1) of the Evidence Act, the court must take into account the probative value of the evidence: s. 138(3)(a). The Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in Riley provides useful guidance on the proper approach to the assessment of probative value.
In Riley, the accused was charged with serious offences relating to a fatal motor vehicle accident. The prosecutor sought to rely on expert toxicological evidence based on a blood sample taken from the accused after the incident. The blood sample was missing its outer tamper-proof cap when it arrived in the laboratory for analysis, although the inner cap was in place. A voir dire was held on the admissibility of the evidence.
The trial judge:
The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against this ruling.
The Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) (Bathurst CJ, Button and Wilson JJ agreeing) held that the trial judge had erred in assessing the probative value of the evidence. The CCA considered that, in accordance with IMM v the Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300 and The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56, the trial judge was required to take the evidence at its highest. There was no evidence that the integrity of the sample was compromised, although this was a possibility. While the absence of the tamper-proof cap cast some doubt on the reliability of the evidence, that would ultimately be a matter for the jury, as the tribunal of fact, in assessing the evidence (at ).
The CCA rejected a submission by Mr Riley that even taking the expert evidence at its highest, it was based on a sample that had possibly been the subject of tampering. The CCA observed that credibility and reliability could only be considered if the risk of contamination, concoction or collusion was so great that the jury could not rationally accept the evidence. Here, the jury would be entitled to reject the possibility that the sample was contaminated. As such, the evidence taken at its highest would be of very high probative value (at -).
The CCA considered afresh whether the evidence should be excluded under s. 138 of the Evidence Act and concluded that the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the evidence declared to be admissible.
Riley is a useful reminder to prosecutors that the probative value of evidence, in the sense of its potential to prove a fact in issue, is determined on the basis that the tribunal of fact will take the evidence at its highest.
Potentially unreliable evidence may be admissible under s. 138; the assessment of reliability is a matter for the tribunal of fact.
Sarah-jane Morris, Director
02 9497 9390
Katrina Frearson, Senior Solicitor
02 9497 9558
Luke Teo, Senior Solicitor
02 9497 9276
To subscribe to Regulatory & Environment Insights, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org
16 Nov 2022
We acknowledge Aboriginal people as the First Nations Peoples of NSW and pay our respects to Elders past, present, and future.
Informed by lessons of the past, Department of Communities and Justice is improving how we work with Aboriginal people and communities. We listen and learn from the knowledge, strength and resilience of Stolen Generations Survivors, Aboriginal Elders and Aboriginal communities.
You can access our apology to the Stolen Generations.