Bill changes law on evidence in courts

Press, 3 October 1979, Page 2

Bill changes law on evidence in courts

PA Wellington! The Evidence Amendment! Bill, including a number of; important changes to the! law of evidence in the! courts, was introduced in! Parliament yesterday by the' A t t o r n e y-General (Mr) McLay). Mr McLay said the areal covered in the new bill in-) volved relatively complex) legal propositions which! were often referred to as "lawyers’ law.” The bill includes changes to the law in such fields as admissibility of hearsay evidence, convictions as evidence in civil proceedings, privilege of witnesses, and examination of witnesses < n behalf of an overseas court. Mr McLay said that for the first time oral hearsay evidence would be admissible in New Zealand courts but would be allowed only in civil cases tried without a jury. Commenting on the part of the bill which dealt with the use of convictions as evidence in civil proceed-; ings, Mr McLay said it e ! ferred to what lawyers knew! as the rule in HollingtOn v. Hewthorn. In that case the Court of Appeal in England ruled that the fact that a person had been convicted of a particular offence could not be admitted in subsequent civil proceedings as evidence tending to prove he did commit the offence. Mr McLay said this rule was not followed in the New Zealand case of Jorgensen v.

(News Media (Auckland), Ltd.) jin that case proof of a coni viction for murder was held Ito be admissible in defama.l tion proceedings to assist in (establishing the defence that Jthe, statement made about I the plaintiff was true. I The new bill provided for a conviction’s being coni elusive evidence of guilt in (defamation proceedings if ) the conviction existed at the ; time when the statement! was made. Mr McLay said that clause) . 42 of the bill provided for a I ) court’s allowing a claim of privilege where to supply) the information would be a! j breach of confidence by the , witness. This referred to where a special relationship! . existed between the person , who supplied the information and the witness. . “Privilege may be des-1 cribed as the right to refuse) , to disclose in court or to! allow another person to dis-1 . close in court, evidence that! is otherwise admissible and!

I that is relevant to the mat- ) ter in issue,” ,Mr McLay I said. . Another part of the bill set up a mechanism allowing a .court,, in a nominated country to be designated, a corresponding court. “Once that has been done evidence required by a New Zealand court from the prescribed country or vice-versa ■ can be taken and forwarded [with a minimum of proceduI sal difficulty,” Mr McLay .said. i Commenting on the bill, Mr G. W. R. Palmer ■j (Labour, Christchurch Ceniltral) said that changes to ?|the law of evidence which i had been made in other > countries had gone a great i deal further. - He was particularly criti- ; cal that a codification of the -I law relating to the admissijjbility of hearsay evidence chad not been attempted. ) “I am somewhat conocerned that if this bill be- ! I comes law we will be set ’ upon a course which will be (very difficult to depart [from,” Mr Palmer said. But the Opposition did not oppose the referral of the bill to the Statutes Revision Committee.