LAWS50037

0）你这门课到底在考什么（用“2条主线 + 1个产物”把它拆开）

• Strand 1：Fact analysis（30%）
  • 目标：先不谈证据法，只做事实理论（theory）+ 推理链（inference chains / proof）。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[10]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfONE item, ONE purpose at a time - admissibility is use-relative. \ Ladder: relevance (ss 55-56) - rule - exception - discretions (ss 135-138). Y Rules are cumulative, not alternatives. Y s 137 is mandatory in crime. Advice = theory -> proof -+ impact; the 70% exam is the impact part. Y Always end each item: admitted? and for what use? Y It is a future trial, not a review of the past one. √一次一项证据、一种用途 一可采性与用途相关。√阶梯:相关性(ss 55-56)→规则→例外→ 裁量权(ss 135-138)。√ 各规则是累积性的,而非互斥选项。√s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。√ 意见书=理论→证明→影响; 70% 的考试是影响那一部分。√每一项都要以此收尾:是否采纳?用作何种用途?√ 这是一场未来的审判,而非对过去 那场审判的复审。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . THEORY - STRAND 1 . FACT ANALYSIS FACT ANALYSIS TASK . 30% Case theory: choosing the factual theory 案件理论:选定事实理论(factual theory) The nine criteria the 30% task is marked against (Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) 占30%的作业据以评分的九项标准(Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) TL;DR. Fact analysis answers two questions before any law: (1) what must we prove? (the case) and (2) how do we prove it? (the proof). The case <1+3}> is the single legally-significant proposition; the theory «###it> is the story that makes it true. You pick the theory that best satisfies the nine Proof [5. 70] criteria. 一句话概要。事实分析在涉及任何法律之前先回答两个问题:(1)我们必须证明什么?(案件主张(case))与(2)我们如何证 明?(证明(proof))。案件主张《案件主张》是单一的具有法律意义的命题;事实理论(theory)<事实理论》则是使其成立的故 事叙述。你应选取最能满足Proof[5. 70]九项标准的理论。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 1 of the advice: state a factual theory that best satisfies the [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria - without applying the law of evidence. Markers reward a single, plausible, comprehensive, internally-consistent narrative that follows the set case exactly and tells the how and why, not a bare chronology of events. 意见书第1部分:陈述一个最能满足[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标准的事实理论 一而不适用证据法。评分者奖励一个单一的、可 信的、全面的、内部一致的叙事,它严格遵循既定案件主张并讲清如何与为何,而非对各事件的干巴巴的时间顺序罗 列。 CASE VS THEORY . PROOF [5. 30] CASE << 待证命题>="a single factual proposition . . . to the effect that an event with legal consequences has occurred. " The destination. THEORY <A>> = "a narrative or story . . . an explanation for all the evidence. " The route. # Criterion ([5. 70]-[5. 170]) What it demands of the theory 1 Consistency with instructions The theory must serve the set case you were instructed to advise on - no more, no less. Arguing the opposite of the set case is a fatal error. 2 Minimalism Assume as little as possible; do not multiply contested propositions. 3 Simplicity The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence. 4 Legal significance The theory must support a proposition carrying the required legal consequence. 5 Consistency Internally coherent; no self-contradiction. 6 Plausibility Believable against ordinary human experience and the brief. 7 Clarity Communicable to a third party (even a non-lawyer). 8 Comprehensiveness The heavily-marked one. Take a clear position on all the evidence - especially the ambiguous or complicating facts. Reaching 'no conclusion' on a contested event is the cardinal error. 9 Flexibility Able to absorb new evidence without collapsing. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
• Strand 2：Law of evidence / Admissibility（70% Final）
  • 目标：把你在 Strand 1 做出来的“重要推理链”，逐条跑过 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) 的可采性流程，并写清楚每条规则如何 & 为什么“咬住/不咬住”该证据。[4]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf9 Privilege, proof & warnings ss 118-128, 140-142 . JDA directions → Reference . The open-book navigator (tab these) D Case dictionary every leading case - one-line ratio → S Section index every Vic section - effect (Cth/NSW divergences flagged) → G Glossary every term, glossed «+X» → Walk in ready P Practice bank advice-on-evidence drills & model answers → AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual i Why this order 为何采用这一顺序 The book follows the subject's own arc. Method first - the single workflow that links the two assessed skills (build the proof, then run each chain through the admissibility flowchart). Strand 1 (Ch 1) is the fact-analysis half assessed in the 30% task: case, theory and the inference chains. Strand 2 (Ch 2-9) is the law-of-evidence spine of the 70% exam, in the order a chain meets it - the relevance gateway first, then the exclusionary rules (hearsay, opinion, tendency/coincidence/credibility, character & post-offence conduct, admissions), then the discretions that weigh probative value against prejudice, and finally privilege, proof and warnings. The Reference tables (case dictionary, section index, glossary) are the open-book navigator - tab them. Practice turns it into marks, because this subject is a skill you pass by doing. 本书遵循本科自身的脉络。方法在先 一那条连接两项被考核技能的单一工作流程(先构建证明,再让每条链跑过可采性 流程图)。第1条主线(第1章)是30% 任务所考核的事实分析那一半:案件主张、理论与推理链。第2条主线(第 2-9 章)是70% 考试中证据法的主轴,按一条链与之相遇的顺序排列 一先是相关性关口,继而是各排除规则(传 闻、意见、倾向/巧合/可信性、品格与犯罪后行为、自认),然后是将证明价值与偏见相权衡的各项裁量权,最后是特免 权、证明与警告。参考表格(案件词典、条文索引、术语表)即开卷导航器 一给它们贴上标签。练习方能将其转化为分 数,因为本科是一门要靠实做去通过的技能。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . THE LADDER METHOD . ADMISSIBILITY FINAL EXAM . 70% How to answer an Evidence problem 如何作答一道证据法(Evidence) 题 The meta-skill: one flowchart, run item-by-item, purpose-by-purpose 元技能:一张流程图,逐项、逐用途地运行 TL;DR. The law-of-evidence half of the exam asks one repeated question: would this item of evidence be admitted in a future Victorian criminal trial, and for what use? The answer is always the same ladder - relevance (ss 55-56) - exclusionary rule - exception - discretions (ss 135-138) - applied separately to every item and every purpose. Master the ladder and the open-book exam becomes a navigation exercise. 一句话概要。考试中证据法那一半反复追问同一个问题:这一项证据在未来的维州刑事审判中是否会被采纳,以及用作何种用 途?答案永远是同一个阶梯 - 相关性(relevance)(ss 55-56)→排除规则→例外→ 裁量权(discretions) (ss 135- 138) 一 对每一项证据、每一种用途分别加以适用。掌握了这一阶梯,开卷考试便成了一项导航练习。[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses

1）考试结构与“怎么拿分”（你要围着这个复习）

• Fact Analysis Task：约 30%，约 1500 words（关键陷阱：图表框里的字也算进 1500）。[1]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfExam admissibility analysis book, digital period (Strand 2) Attendance - seminars, ≥75% Weekly All sem hurdle (not a mark) The two tasks are the first/second and third sections of a single advice on evidence: (1) state the factual theory; (2) build the proof (inference chains, conjunctive vs convergent); (3) evaluate the impact of the law of evidence. §1-2 = the 30% task; §3 = the 70% exam. Roughly half the total marks reward the law. Word- limit trap: words inside chart boxes count toward the 1500. Confirm the exact split, date and Al/word codes on your LMS (M). 这两项任务是同一份证据分析意见书(advice on evidence) 的第一/第二部分与第三部分:(1)陈述事实理论(theory); (2)构建证明(proof)(推理链,合取 vs 汇聚);(3)评估证 据法的影响。§1-2= 30% 的任务;§3=70% 的考试。总 分中约有一半奖励对法律的运用。字数限制陷阱:图表框内 的文字计入 1500 字之内。请在你的LMS 上核实确切的分 值占比、日期以及 Al/字数规则(→)。 What each piece rewards 每一块各奖励什么 Piece What it rewards Theory (in the 30%) One plausible, comprehensive narrative that follows the set case exactly - the how and why Proof (in True [6. 140] chains; naming conjunction vs the 30%) convergence; pinpointing the exact evidence Law (the 70%) Methodical admissibility tied to the precise rational use; the clean pathway; the discretions in depth AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ The open-book strategy this dictates 由此所决定的开卷应试策略 Because the final is open-book and locked-down, recall is not the test - navigation is. Build a printed kit and tab it: the Section index (Vic section - effect), the Case dictionary (case - one-line ratio, esp. IMM on probative value), and the admissibility decision-trees (relevance - hearsay - opinion - tendency/coincidence - admissions - ss 135-138). For each significant chain in the proof, know where to look for the test, the leading case and the right Vic section - then write how AND why it bites. The lecturer's own advice: don't waste time writing summaries - practise on past briefs. Confirm the 2026 cover sheet permits printed material before you rely on bringing this in. 由于期末为开卷且锁定环境,记忆并非考核所在 一导 航才是。请构建一份印刷资料包并贴上标签:条文索 引(维州条文→效果)、案件词典(案件→一行裁判 要旨,尤其是关于证明价值的 IMM),以及可采性决策 树(相关性→传闻→意见→倾向/巧合→自认→ ss 135-138)。对于证明中的每一条重要链,要知道该 往何处查其检验标准、权威判例及对应的维州条文一 然后写出它如何及为何命中。授课教师本人的建议: 不要浪费时间去写摘要-在过往卷宗上练习。在你依 赖将本书带入考场之前,请先核实 2026 年封面页是 否允许携带印刷材料。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual CONTENTS CONTENTS The whole subject, in one ordered book 整门课,浓缩为一本有序之书[11]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf! Theory-stage errors that lose marks 理论阶段失分的错误 (1) Arguing the opposite of the set case. (2) Bare chronology with no analysis. (3) Mislabelling the case - adding 'intentionally' or 'murdered' when the set case is narrower (e. g. just 'the accused stabbed V') creates needless work. (4) A victim-centred theory in a perpetrator case - the how and why is about the perpetrator. (5) Putting why you believe it (the evidence) in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (1)论证与既定案件主张相反的内容。(2)干巴巴的时间顺序罗列而无任何分析。(3)给案件主张贴错标签 一 当既定案件 主张更为狭窄时(例如仅为‘被告刺伤了V'),却添加‘故意地’或‘谋杀’,徒增不必要的工作量。(4)在一个以加害人为中 心的案件中给出以被害人为中心的理论一其‘如何与为何’关乎的是加害人。(5)把你为何相信它(即证据)放进理论中 - 那属于证明部分。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . PROOF - STRAND 1 . PROOF Proving the theory: inference chains & the chart 证成理论:推理链(inference chains) 与图表 The [6. 140] relation; building blocks; conjunction vs convergence [6. 140]的关系;构成要件;合取(conjunction)与汇聚(convergence)之别 TL;DR. Part 2 turns the theory into a proof - a Wigmorean chart climbing from a courtroom event through inferred factual propositions to the case, every connecting line obeying the [6. 140] relation. Where chains meet, say whether they are conjunctive (all needed) or convergent (independent, cumulative). 一句话概要。第 2部分将理论转化为证明(proof)- 一张维格莫尔式(Wigmorean)图表(chart),从某一法庭事件(event) 出发,经由推断出的事实命题(factual propositions)攀升至案件主张(case),每一条连接线都须遵守[6. 140]的关系。在各 链相交之处,须说明它们究竟是合取式(conjunctive)(全部都需要)还是汇聚式(convergent)(彼此独立、累积叠加)。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 2: identify, with precision, the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony available in a future trial, arrange them with your own intermediate propositions into the [6. 140] relation, and classify chains as conjunctive or convergent. Pinpoint the exact part of the evidence relied on - never 'see the witness statement at large'. Chart-box words count toward the word limit. 第2 部分:精确指明在未来审判中可获得的书证/实物证据以及在世证人(living-witness)的证言,用你自己拟定的中 间命题将它们排入[6. 140]关系,并将各链归类为合取式或汇聚式。精确指出所依赖的证据的确切部分 一 绝不可写‘见 证人陈述全文’。图表框内的文字计入字数限制。 THE CORE INFERENCE RELATION . PROOF [6. 140] A connecting line in the chart means: "if the factual proposition at the BOTTOM of the connecting line is true then this makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that the proposition at the TOP of the connecting line is true. " Note: this is the SAME logic as legal (s 55) - the chart method IS the relevance test made concrete. < 相关性即推断的逻辑关系> The four building blocks 四项构成要件 Building block Definition (Proof Ch 6) Evidence (bottom) A factual proposition about an event that will occur in the trial - phrase it as "[Witness] will say in court that . . . " or "[Exhibit] is shown and it shows . . . ", never as the underlying fact. Factual proposition (middle) An intermediate inferred fact about the world, devised by the advocate; each must be consistent with the theory. How chains relate 各条推理链如何相互关联 Relationship Para
• Final Exam：约 70%，3小时，open-book（但 Cadmus + LockDown Browser 锁环境，只能用你带进去的纸质/手写材料）。[3]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf一句话概要。本书并非Proof或 Uniform Evidence的重新誊抄本,而是对 LAWS50037 所考核的两项技能的自足式地图:构 建证明(事实理论(factual theory)+推理链(inference chains))与适用法律(依据维州《证据法》判定可采性 (admissibility))。每一条规则均以浅白方式陈述,与其权威判例及条文编号相联系,然后在中性的演练事实上加以反复操练 一 因此同样的篇幅可在十次研讨课中以三种方式为你所用。 A 1 . LEARN 1 ·学习 (LEARN) You haven't done the seminar reading yet. Read a chapter top to bottom. Every rule opens with the legal question it answers, states the test in elements, names its leading case and section, then lands on a neutral worked example. Meet the doctrine here cold before the interactive seminar (the 75% attendance hurdle means you must be there - come primed). 你还没做研讨课的阅读。从头到 尾读完一整章。每条规则都以它 所回答的法律问题开篇,以要件 形式陈述其检验标准,点出其权 威判例与条文,最后落到一个中 性的演练实例上。在互动式研讨 课之前先在此处把这一原理啃透 (75% 的出勤门槛意味着你必须 到场 一 请有备而来)。 B 2 · REVISE 2 · 复习 (REVISE) You've done the reading and the seminar. Use the TEST boxes, the leading-case grids and the section indexes to self-test: can you state the rule, name the case, cite the Vic section, and run a fact through it? The recall checklist at each chapter's end is your gap-finder before the Fact Analysis Task and the final. 你已经做完阅读并上完研讨课。 利用 TEST 框、权威判例表格以 及条文索引来进行自我检验:你 能否陈述规则、说出案件、援引 维州条文,并用一项事实跑一 遍?每章末尾的回顾清单是你在 事实分析任务和期末之前的查漏 工具。 C 3 . APPLY - this is an OPEN- BOOK bring-in 3 · 运用(APPLY) -这是一场开卷 可携带(bring-in)的考试 You're in the exam room. The final is open-book: the skill is to know where to look, fast. Print this book, tab the section index and the case dictionary, and index the admissibility decision- trees - then navigate, don't memorise. Bring it alongside your Evidence Act extract. Confirm your cover sheet first (see below). 你正身处考场。期末为开卷:所 需技能是快速知道该往何处查。 打印本书,给条文索引和案件词 典贴上标签,并为可采性决策树 编上索引 一然后导航,而非死 记。请连同你的《证据法》节选 本一起带入。先核实你的封面页 (见下文)。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! Read this first - the assessment shape + the open-book / Cadmus caveat 先读这一段 一 考核形态 + 开卷/Cadmus 注意事项 LAWS50037 is split-assessed for 2026: a mid-semester Fact Analysis Task (30%, ~1500 words) - devise the factual theory and build the inference chains (no law of evidence yet) - and a 3-hour Final Exam (70%) in the exam period - the admissibility analysis (apply the Act, state how AND why each rule bites). A 75% seminar- attendance hurdle must also be met to pass. The cover sheet states the exam is open-book - any printed or written material. BUT 2026 is delivered in Cadmus inside the Respondus LockDown Browser (no external apps, URLs, copy-paste or screenshots): only printed / written matter may be brought in - which is exactly why a printed companion wins. Always confirm the permitted-materials rule on your own 2026 cover sheet, as it controls. LAWS50037 在 2026 年采用拆分式考核:一项期中事实分析任务(30%,约1500字) -拟定事实理论(theory)并 构建推理链(inference chains)(尚不涉及证据法)一以及一场在考试期举行的3 小时期末考试(70%) -即可采性 分析(适用《证据法》,陈述每条规则如何及为何命中)。还须满足75% 的研讨课出勤门槛方可及格。封面页载明考试为 开卷 一任何印刷或书写的材料。但是,2026 年的考试是在 Respondus LockDown Browser 内的 Cadmus 中进行的 (不得使用外部应用、网址、复制粘贴或截屏):只有印刷/书写的材料可被带入 -这正是一份印刷版伴侣读物能制胜的 原因。请务必在你自己的2026 年封面页上核实许可携带材料的规则,因为它具有约束力。 i How this book was built 本书是如何构建的 Every test, leading case and section here is grounded in this subject's own materials: the Canvas seminar pages and slide decks, the seminar schedule, the published past-exam general feedback, and the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) text - alongside the prescribed texts, Palmer's Proof (4th ed) and Gans, Palmer & Roberts' Uniform Evidence (4th ed, 2025). Cases (names, facts, ratios) and statutes (sections, text) are public law and are stated plainly and precisely; the lecturer's exam hypotheticals are paraphrased, never reproduced, and every worked example uses our own neutral invented facts. It reflects 2026 law; where a point is unsettled or Victoria diverges it is flagged (). Verify weights, dates and codes on your LMS - this is a study companion, not legal advice.[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
• 另有 75% 出勤门槛（hurdle）：不满足会影响通过。[1]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfExam admissibility analysis book, digital period (Strand 2) Attendance - seminars, ≥75% Weekly All sem hurdle (not a mark) The two tasks are the first/second and third sections of a single advice on evidence: (1) state the factual theory; (2) build the proof (inference chains, conjunctive vs convergent); (3) evaluate the impact of the law of evidence. §1-2 = the 30% task; §3 = the 70% exam. Roughly half the total marks reward the law. Word- limit trap: words inside chart boxes count toward the 1500. Confirm the exact split, date and Al/word codes on your LMS (M). 这两项任务是同一份证据分析意见书(advice on evidence) 的第一/第二部分与第三部分:(1)陈述事实理论(theory); (2)构建证明(proof)(推理链,合取 vs 汇聚);(3)评估证 据法的影响。§1-2= 30% 的任务;§3=70% 的考试。总 分中约有一半奖励对法律的运用。字数限制陷阱:图表框内 的文字计入 1500 字之内。请在你的LMS 上核实确切的分 值占比、日期以及 Al/字数规则(→)。 What each piece rewards 每一块各奖励什么 Piece What it rewards Theory (in the 30%) One plausible, comprehensive narrative that follows the set case exactly - the how and why Proof (in True [6. 140] chains; naming conjunction vs the 30%) convergence; pinpointing the exact evidence Law (the 70%) Methodical admissibility tied to the precise rational use; the clean pathway; the discretions in depth AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ The open-book strategy this dictates 由此所决定的开卷应试策略 Because the final is open-book and locked-down, recall is not the test - navigation is. Build a printed kit and tab it: the Section index (Vic section - effect), the Case dictionary (case - one-line ratio, esp. IMM on probative value), and the admissibility decision-trees (relevance - hearsay - opinion - tendency/coincidence - admissions - ss 135-138). For each significant chain in the proof, know where to look for the test, the leading case and the right Vic section - then write how AND why it bites. The lecturer's own advice: don't waste time writing summaries - practise on past briefs. Confirm the 2026 cover sheet permits printed material before you rely on bringing this in. 由于期末为开卷且锁定环境,记忆并非考核所在 一导 航才是。请构建一份印刷资料包并贴上标签:条文索 引(维州条文→效果)、案件词典(案件→一行裁判 要旨,尤其是关于证明价值的 IMM),以及可采性决策 树(相关性→传闻→意见→倾向/巧合→自认→ ss 135-138)。对于证明中的每一条重要链,要知道该 往何处查其检验标准、权威判例及对应的维州条文一 然后写出它如何及为何命中。授课教师本人的建议: 不要浪费时间去写摘要-在过往卷宗上练习。在你依 赖将本书带入考场之前,请先核实 2026 年封面页是 否允许携带印刷材料。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual CONTENTS CONTENTS The whole subject, in one ordered book 整门课,浓缩为一本有序之书[2]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf此处的每一项检验标准、权威判例和条文都立足于本科自身的材料:Canvas 研讨课页面与幻灯片、研讨课日程、已公布 的过往考试总体反馈,以及 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)文本 一 同时还参照指定教材,即 Palmer 的 Proof(第 4版) 和 Gans,Palmer & Roberts 的 Uniform Evidence(第4版,2025)。案件(名称、事实、裁判要旨)与制定法(条 文、文本)属公共法律,均以浅白而精确的方式陈述;授课教师的考试假设案例则被转述,绝不照搬,且每个演练实例 均使用我们自己的中性虚构事实。本书反映2026 年的法律;凡某一点尚无定论或维州有所分歧之处均已标注(一)。请 在你的 LMS 上核实分值、日期与代码 一本书是一份学习伴侣读物,而非法律意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual THE BLUEPRINT - THE EXAM BLUEPRINT OPEN-BOOK . 30% + 70% Where every mark lives 每一分都落在哪里 Two stages, one skill set: build the proof, then apply the Act - ~ half the total marks ride on the law 两个阶段,一套技能:先构建证明,再适用《证据法》一约一半的总分系于法律之上 TL;DR. Your mark is built in two stages of the same artefact - an advice on evidence. The mid-semester task assesses the fact-analysis half (theory + inference chains); the final exam assesses the law-of- evidence half (admissibility). The exam is open-book, so the win is a tabbed printable kit that tells you where to look, not a memorised summary. 一句话概要。你的分数是在同一份成果物 一 一份证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)-的两个阶段中累积起来的。期中 任务考核事实分析那一半(事实理论+推理链);期末考试考核证据法那一半(可采性)。考试为开卷,因此制胜之道在于一 份带标签的可打印资料包,它告诉你该往何处查,而非一份背诵的摘要。 30% FACT ANALYSIS TASK 事实分析任务 70% FINAL EXAM 期末考试 3 hr EXAM LENGTH 考试时长 75% ATTENDANCE HURDLE 出勤门槛 The two assessed components 两项受考核的组成部分 Component Weight Format When Fact Analysis Task - 30% ~1500w Mid- theory + inference chains (Strand 1) written sem Final Exam - 70% 3h, open-[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses

• 不是“把所有条文喷一遍”，而是：
  • 你要先锁定证据用途（use / rational use）
  • 再写清规则怎么咬住（how）+ 为什么咬住（why）
  • 最后写裁量/限制用途/不确定因素（contingencies）
• 深挖少数真正有争议的问题，胜过浅浅扫很多规则。[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay

2）你要背到“条件反射”的方法论（Final 70% 的骨架）

2.1 “一次一项证据 + 一次一个用途”（最常见致命错误）

• Step 0：ITEM & PURPOSE（证据项 + 用途）：拿出一项证据，明确你要它证明什么（来自你的 proof chain）。[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay

2.2 Final 的“固定阶梯/流程图”（你写答案就照这个顺序）

• Step 1：Relevance 相关性（ss 55–56）
  • s 55 test：如果该证据被接受（if accepted），它是否“可能（could）”理性地影响（directly/indirectly）对某个“fact in issue”的概率评估？门槛很低：是 could 不是 does。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
  • s 56(2)：不相关 → 直接出局。[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
  • 关键提醒：相关性要按你“提出的用途”来判断（use-based）。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
• Step 2：原则上可采（s 56(1)）
  • 相关证据原则上可采，除非有规则排除。[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
• Step 3：是否被排除规则抓到（Exclusionary rule）
  • 常用“抓捕器”：
    • Hearsay s 59
    • Opinion s 76
    • Tendency s 97 / Coincidence s 98
    • Credibility s 102
      -（材料也提示 character s 110 等会出现）[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[30]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdfany prosecution item 19 · Section Index EVIDENCE ACT 2008 (VIC) § EFFECT 55-56 relevance gateway hearsay rule (intended to assert) non-hearsay purpose (not admissions, s60(3)) 62 . 65 . 66 . 66A first-hand: limit · unavailable · available . own state of mind 67. 69 notice · business records opinion . lay . expert+basis . ultimate-issue gone 81-90 admissions: s84 violence . s85 reliability . s89 silence · s90 fairness 97 - 98 - 101 tendency . coincidence . pros. "substantially outweighs" (Vic) 101A-108C . 110-112 credibility (rule + exceptions) · character (leave)
  • 超重要：规则是“累积的（cumulative）”，不是互斥的：一份证据可能同时要过 hearsay + tendency（甚至再加 opinion）。[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
• Step 4：有没有对应“入口”回来（Exception / gateway back in）
  • Hearsay 的出口：ss 60–75（含 first-hand ss 65/66/66A、business record s 69 等）[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[7]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf刀(不当/非法取得):违反澳大利亚法律取得→ s 138 -- 不予采纳,除非采纳它的可取性压倒其不可取性,并权衡 s 138(3)各项因素(不当行为的严重性、是否蓄意/轻率、证据的重要性、合法取得的难度等;参 Bunning v Cross (1978))。 举证责任在寻求采纳的一方。 2 Flight (post-offence conduct): running is pure conduct, not a "previous representation," so the Evidence Act admissions rules don't reach it - it is governed by the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). As incriminating conduct, s 21: the jury may use it only if the only reasonable explanation is consistent with guilt (flight is also consistent with panic/fear - the innocent explanation must be excluded). 逃跑(犯罪后行为):逃跑是纯粹行为,并非“先前陈述”,故 Evidence Act 的自认/供述规则触及不到它 -- 它由 Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)支配。作为涉罪行为,依 s 21:陪审团仅在其唯一合理解释与罪责相符时方可使用它(逃跑也与 惊慌/恐惧相符 -- 必须排除那个清白的解释)。 - Marker note: keep the two filters distinct - s 138 (lawfulness/policy balance for the knife) vs the JDA s 21 incriminating-conduct test for the flight. Don't analyse pure conduct under s 81 - admissions need a "representation. " AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual 评分者注解:须将两道过滤分清 一 针对那把刀的 s 138(合法性/政策权衡)vs 针对逃跑的 JDA s 21 罪证行为检验。切勿 在 s 81 之下分析纯粹的行为 一 自认需要一项“陈述(representation)”。 ★ Recall checklist - the open-book navigator 回顾清单 一 开卷导航器 Every chain: relevance (s 55/56) first. Hearsay - intended assertion (s 59); exceptions s 60 (not admissions, s 60(3)), first-hand ss 65/66/66A, business records s 69. Opinion - s 76; lay s 78, expert s 79 (basis rule - Dasreef/Honeysett). Accused's own words - admission s 81 (then ss 84/85/90; cautioning s 139). Patterns - tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 (Hughes) + Vic s 101 "substantially outweighs". Discretions - s 137 (must) / s 135 (may) / s 138 (improperly obtained, Bunning v Cross). Probative value - IMM "at its highest. " Conduct/lies - JDA s 21. Always: state the exact use, then how & why + the contingency. Confirm permitted materials on your cover sheet. 每一条链:先看相关性(s 55/56)。传闻→意图的主张(s 59);例外见 s 60(不含自认/供述,s 60(3))、第一手 ss 65/66/66A、业务记录 s 69。意见→s 76;非专家 s 78,专家 s 79(基础规则 -- Dasreef/Honeysett)。被告人自 己的言辞→自认/供述 s 81(然后 ss 84/85/90;警示 s 139)。行为模式→倾向 s 97/ 巧合 s 98(Hughes) +维州 s 101“在实质上压倒”。裁量权→ s 137(必须)/ s 135(可)/ s 138(不当取得,Bunning v Cross)。证明价值→ IMM"其最高值”。行为/谎言→ JDA s 21。始终:先说明确切用途,然后说明如何及为何+不确定因素。请核对封面页 上获准的材料。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual AskSia Library SUBJECT BIBLE . ASKSIA MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL SEMESTER 1 . 2026 CASE THE COMPLETE SUBJECT BIBLE Evidence and Proof 证据与证明 BUILD THE INFERENCE CHAIN . THEN RUN IT THROUGH THE ACT. 先建推理链,再过《证据法》 · 开卷可带 LAWS50037 . MELBOURNE JD . UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE 中英双语版 · BILINGUAL EDITION 英文主讲,中文随行 一 考试要点与术语保留英文原词 A JD study companion built around this subject's own two-strand spine: the fact-analysis skill - case, theory and the Wigmorean inference chains of an advice on evidence - and the law of evidence, the admissibility rules of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (relevance -+ hearsay -> opinion - tendency - admissions -> the discretions). The 70% final is a 3-hour open-book exam - so the win is a tabbed "where to look" navigator, not memorised summaries. Subject Bible . AskSia Independent study companion, not affiliated with or endorsed by the University of Melbourne. Not legal advice. Corrections: takedowns@asksia. ai PREFACE - HOW TO USE THIS BOOK One book, three moments 一本书,三个时刻 Wherever you are in the semester - and whatever you carry into the exam - start here 无论你身处学期何处 一 也无论你带什么进考场 一都从这里开始 TL;DR. This is not a re-typed copy of Proof or Uniform Evidence. It is a self-contained map of the two skills LAWS50037 assesses: building the proof (theory + inference chains) and applying the law (admissibility under the Victorian Act). Each rule is stated plainly, tied to its leading case and its section number, then drilled on neutral worked facts - so the same pages serve you three ways across the ten seminars.
  • Opinion 的出口：ss 78/79（lay / expert）[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[7]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf刀(不当/非法取得):违反澳大利亚法律取得→ s 138 -- 不予采纳,除非采纳它的可取性压倒其不可取性,并权衡 s 138(3)各项因素(不当行为的严重性、是否蓄意/轻率、证据的重要性、合法取得的难度等;参 Bunning v Cross (1978))。 举证责任在寻求采纳的一方。 2 Flight (post-offence conduct): running is pure conduct, not a "previous representation," so the Evidence Act admissions rules don't reach it - it is governed by the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). As incriminating conduct, s 21: the jury may use it only if the only reasonable explanation is consistent with guilt (flight is also consistent with panic/fear - the innocent explanation must be excluded). 逃跑(犯罪后行为):逃跑是纯粹行为,并非“先前陈述”,故 Evidence Act 的自认/供述规则触及不到它 -- 它由 Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)支配。作为涉罪行为,依 s 21:陪审团仅在其唯一合理解释与罪责相符时方可使用它(逃跑也与 惊慌/恐惧相符 -- 必须排除那个清白的解释)。 - Marker note: keep the two filters distinct - s 138 (lawfulness/policy balance for the knife) vs the JDA s 21 incriminating-conduct test for the flight. Don't analyse pure conduct under s 81 - admissions need a "representation. " AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual 评分者注解:须将两道过滤分清 一 针对那把刀的 s 138(合法性/政策权衡)vs 针对逃跑的 JDA s 21 罪证行为检验。切勿 在 s 81 之下分析纯粹的行为 一 自认需要一项“陈述(representation)”。 ★ Recall checklist - the open-book navigator 回顾清单 一 开卷导航器 Every chain: relevance (s 55/56) first. Hearsay - intended assertion (s 59); exceptions s 60 (not admissions, s 60(3)), first-hand ss 65/66/66A, business records s 69. Opinion - s 76; lay s 78, expert s 79 (basis rule - Dasreef/Honeysett). Accused's own words - admission s 81 (then ss 84/85/90; cautioning s 139). Patterns - tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 (Hughes) + Vic s 101 "substantially outweighs". Discretions - s 137 (must) / s 135 (may) / s 138 (improperly obtained, Bunning v Cross). Probative value - IMM "at its highest. " Conduct/lies - JDA s 21. Always: state the exact use, then how & why + the contingency. Confirm permitted materials on your cover sheet. 每一条链:先看相关性(s 55/56)。传闻→意图的主张(s 59);例外见 s 60(不含自认/供述,s 60(3))、第一手 ss 65/66/66A、业务记录 s 69。意见→s 76;非专家 s 78,专家 s 79(基础规则 -- Dasreef/Honeysett)。被告人自 己的言辞→自认/供述 s 81(然后 ss 84/85/90;警示 s 139)。行为模式→倾向 s 97/ 巧合 s 98(Hughes) +维州 s 101“在实质上压倒”。裁量权→ s 137(必须)/ s 135(可)/ s 138(不当取得,Bunning v Cross)。证明价值→ IMM"其最高值”。行为/谎言→ JDA s 21。始终:先说明确切用途,然后说明如何及为何+不确定因素。请核对封面页 上获准的材料。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual AskSia Library SUBJECT BIBLE . ASKSIA MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL SEMESTER 1 . 2026 CASE THE COMPLETE SUBJECT BIBLE Evidence and Proof 证据与证明 BUILD THE INFERENCE CHAIN . THEN RUN IT THROUGH THE ACT. 先建推理链,再过《证据法》 · 开卷可带 LAWS50037 . MELBOURNE JD . UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE 中英双语版 · BILINGUAL EDITION 英文主讲,中文随行 一 考试要点与术语保留英文原词 A JD study companion built around this subject's own two-strand spine: the fact-analysis skill - case, theory and the Wigmorean inference chains of an advice on evidence - and the law of evidence, the admissibility rules of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (relevance -+ hearsay -> opinion - tendency - admissions -> the discretions). The 70% final is a 3-hour open-book exam - so the win is a tabbed "where to look" navigator, not memorised summaries. Subject Bible . AskSia Independent study companion, not affiliated with or endorsed by the University of Melbourne. Not legal advice. Corrections: takedowns@asksia. ai PREFACE - HOW TO USE THIS BOOK One book, three moments 一本书,三个时刻 Wherever you are in the semester - and whatever you carry into the exam - start here 无论你身处学期何处 一 也无论你带什么进考场 一都从这里开始 TL;DR. This is not a re-typed copy of Proof or Uniform Evidence. It is a self-contained map of the two skills LAWS50037 assesses: building the proof (theory + inference chains) and applying the law (admissibility under the Victorian Act). Each rule is stated plainly, tied to its leading case and its section number, then drilled on neutral worked facts - so the same pages serve you three ways across the ten seminars.
  • Accused 自己的话：admission s 81（这是“干净路径 clean pathway”，不要硬绕别的条文）。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf118 - 119 . 128 CLP advice · CLP litigation · self- incrimination 135 - 136 . 137 - 138 general . limit use . mandatory . improperly obtained 140 - 141 . 142 civil BoP · criminal BRD · admissibility BoP . 164/165 warnings (Vic civil) 20 . Exam Discipline WIN THE 70% · Answer in proof order; for each node state the precise rational use, then rule -> exception > discretion ( how AND why ) · Rules are cumulative: a tendency-laden representation must pass hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion) · Find the clean pathway (s81 for an accused's own statement); flag the s60(3) trap · Engage the cost side in detail - s101 (Vic), s137, s138/s90 - and state contingencies (judge's discretion, trial facts) precisely SIA > Open-book = the win is navigation, not recall - jump to the right section, then write the application. Tie probative value to IMM ("at its highest"); watch the Vic-specific s101 / s165 traps. Open-book . Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) . confirm your current exam cover sheet . @ 2026 good luck. name the use, then the rule. asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-Laws50037 · side 2/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES · SIDE 2/2 TENDENCY/COINCIDENCE ss97-101 . Credibility s102/s101A . ADMISSIONS ss81-90 . Character & post-offence . THE DISCRETIONS s135/s137/s138 . Privilege . Burden ss140-142 . Warnings . Index . Trigger table OPEN-BOOK VIC UEL Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the LAWS50037 scope . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-Laws50037 SS94-101 .
• Step 5：裁量与兜底（Discretions：ss 135–138 + 其他）
  • s 135（一般裁量）：法院 may 拒绝；标准是 probative value 是否被“substantially outweighed”。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法
  • s 136（限缩用途）：法院可“只准某用途”。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法
  • s 137（刑事检方证据，强制排除）：法院 MUST 排除；标准是 probative value 是否被（仅）“outweighed”（注意不是 substantially）且是对 accused 的 unfair prejudice。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay
  • s 138（不当/非法取得）：原则不采，除非“采纳的可取性 > 不采纳的不可取性”，并权衡 s 138(3) 因素；举证责任在寻求采纳的一方。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[29]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf14b . s138 - PUBLIC-POLICY Improperly Obtained BALANCE S138 evidence obtained improperly / illegally is NOT admitted UNLESS the desirability of admitting it outweighs the undesirability . Onus on the party seeking admission. s138(3) - 8 factors: (a) PV; (b) importance; (c) nature of offence; (d) gravity; (e) deliberate/reckless ?; (f) ICCPR breach ?; (g) other proceedings; (h) difficulty of getting it lawfully. BUNNING V CROSS (1978) 141 CLR 54 The common-law public-policy discretion s138 codifies - balance convicting the guilty against not condoning unlawful policing. Lawfulness: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss458-465. 15 · Privilege PT3. 10 . SS117-139A TYPE + RULE - EXCEPTION + 5 CLIENT LEGAL PRIVILEGE (= LPP) · s118 - advice privilege: a confidential lawyer- client (or lawyer-lawyer) communication/document made for the dominant purpose of legal advice ESSO AUSTRALIA RESOURCES V FCT (1999) 201 CLR 49 The UEL adopts the dominant-purpose test (not the older "sole purpose"). SELF-INCRIMINATION s128 - a witness may object to giving self- incriminating evidence; the court may issue a certificate (s128(7)) = a use immunity. Distinct from the accused's s89 silence right. s120 unrepresented parties · s123 exception for an accused . s126 related comms. Privilege is the client's - only the client may object/waive. 16 . Burden & Standard § STANDARD s140 civil - balance of probabilities (gravity factors; Briginshaw codified, s140(2) s141 |criminal - prosecution beyond reasonable doubt (s141(1)); accused on the balance (s141(2)) s142 admissibility / voir-dire facts decided on the balance of probabilities - even in a criminal trial
  • s 90（admissions 的公平兜底）：检方的 admission 若“unfair to the accused”可被排除。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法
• Step 6：落点句（考试里非常值钱）
  • 每一项都要收尾写清：Admitted / Not admitted？如果 admitted，是“为了什么用途（for what use）”？[10]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfONE item, ONE purpose at a time - admissibility is use-relative. \ Ladder: relevance (ss 55-56) - rule - exception - discretions (ss 135-138). Y Rules are cumulative, not alternatives. Y s 137 is mandatory in crime. Advice = theory -> proof -+ impact; the 70% exam is the impact part. Y Always end each item: admitted? and for what use? Y It is a future trial, not a review of the past one. √一次一项证据、一种用途 一可采性与用途相关。√阶梯:相关性(ss 55-56)→规则→例外→ 裁量权(ss 135-138)。√ 各规则是累积性的,而非互斥选项。√s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。√ 意见书=理论→证明→影响; 70% 的考试是影响那一部分。√每一项都要以此收尾:是否采纳?用作何种用途?√ 这是一场未来的审判,而非对过去 那场审判的复审。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . THEORY - STRAND 1 . FACT ANALYSIS FACT ANALYSIS TASK . 30% Case theory: choosing the factual theory 案件理论:选定事实理论(factual theory) The nine criteria the 30% task is marked against (Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) 占30%的作业据以评分的九项标准(Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) TL;DR. Fact analysis answers two questions before any law: (1) what must we prove? (the case) and (2) how do we prove it? (the proof). The case <1+3}> is the single legally-significant proposition; the theory «###it> is the story that makes it true. You pick the theory that best satisfies the nine Proof [5. 70] criteria. 一句话概要。事实分析在涉及任何法律之前先回答两个问题:(1)我们必须证明什么?(案件主张(case))与(2)我们如何证 明?(证明(proof))。案件主张《案件主张》是单一的具有法律意义的命题;事实理论(theory)<事实理论》则是使其成立的故 事叙述。你应选取最能满足Proof[5. 70]九项标准的理论。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 1 of the advice: state a factual theory that best satisfies the [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria - without applying the law of evidence. Markers reward a single, plausible, comprehensive, internally-consistent narrative that follows the set case exactly and tells the how and why, not a bare chronology of events. 意见书第1部分:陈述一个最能满足[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标准的事实理论 一而不适用证据法。评分者奖励一个单一的、可 信的、全面的、内部一致的叙事,它严格遵循既定案件主张并讲清如何与为何,而非对各事件的干巴巴的时间顺序罗 列。 CASE VS THEORY . PROOF [5. 30] CASE << 待证命题>="a single factual proposition . . . to the effect that an event with legal consequences has occurred. " The destination. THEORY <A>> = "a narrative or story . . . an explanation for all the evidence. " The route. # Criterion ([5. 70]-[5. 170]) What it demands of the theory 1 Consistency with instructions The theory must serve the set case you were instructed to advise on - no more, no less. Arguing the opposite of the set case is a fatal error. 2 Minimalism Assume as little as possible; do not multiply contested propositions. 3 Simplicity The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence. 4 Legal significance The theory must support a proposition carrying the required legal consequence. 5 Consistency Internally coherent; no self-contradiction. 6 Plausibility Believable against ordinary human experience and the brief. 7 Clarity Communicable to a third party (even a non-lawyer). 8 Comprehensiveness The heavily-marked one. Take a clear position on all the evidence - especially the ambiguous or complicating facts. Reaching 'no conclusion' on a contested event is the cardinal error. 9 Flexibility Able to absorb new evidence without collapsing. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual

3）Final 最常见“四大 method-killers”（你只要避开就能涨分）

4）你必须掌握的“高频硬点”（按最可能被考/最容易丢分排序）

4.1 Relevance：ss 55–56（所有分析的第一道门）

你要会写的关键句：

• “If accepted, it could rationally affect …”（先写用途，再接 s 55）。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses

常用提醒：

• s 55 门槛低，别自己抬高。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
• Smith v The Queen 提醒：如果某推断陪审团自己就能做，某些“专业/权威式”说法可能不加分反而无关。[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses

4.2 Discretions：ss 135–138（尤其 s 137 / s 138）

你要精准区分：[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法

• s 135：may / substantially outweighed
• s 137：MUST / outweighed（刑事检方证据）

s 138 必会写法：

• “不当/非法取得 → 原则不采 → 只有当 desirability > undesirability 才可能采；并按 s 138(3) 权衡；onus 在申请采纳方。”[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[29]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf14b . s138 - PUBLIC-POLICY Improperly Obtained BALANCE S138 evidence obtained improperly / illegally is NOT admitted UNLESS the desirability of admitting it outweighs the undesirability . Onus on the party seeking admission. s138(3) - 8 factors: (a) PV; (b) importance; (c) nature of offence; (d) gravity; (e) deliberate/reckless ?; (f) ICCPR breach ?; (g) other proceedings; (h) difficulty of getting it lawfully. BUNNING V CROSS (1978) 141 CLR 54 The common-law public-policy discretion s138 codifies - balance convicting the guilty against not condoning unlawful policing. Lawfulness: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss458-465. 15 · Privilege PT3. 10 . SS117-139A TYPE + RULE - EXCEPTION + 5 CLIENT LEGAL PRIVILEGE (= LPP) · s118 - advice privilege: a confidential lawyer- client (or lawyer-lawyer) communication/document made for the dominant purpose of legal advice ESSO AUSTRALIA RESOURCES V FCT (1999) 201 CLR 49 The UEL adopts the dominant-purpose test (not the older "sole purpose"). SELF-INCRIMINATION s128 - a witness may object to giving self- incriminating evidence; the court may issue a certificate (s128(7)) = a use immunity. Distinct from the accused's s89 silence right. s120 unrepresented parties · s123 exception for an accused . s126 related comms. Privilege is the client's - only the client may object/waive. 16 . Burden & Standard § STANDARD s140 civil - balance of probabilities (gravity factors; Briginshaw codified, s140(2) s141 |criminal - prosecution beyond reasonable doubt (s141(1)); accused on the balance (s141(2)) s142 admissibility / voir-dire facts decided on the balance of probabilities - even in a criminal trial

4.3 “证明价值（probative value）”的 IMM 陷阱（超级高频高分点）

IMM v The Queen 的考试用法：[13]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf§ § The IMM probative-value trap (get it exactly right) § IMM 证明价值陷阱(务必准确把握) IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14. When assessing probative value (ss 97/98/101/135/137), take the evidence "at its highest" - assume it is accepted; do NOT discount for reliability/credibility. @ The tension: the majority's own "foggy night" example let visibility cap how high an identification could reach. Exam move: never call it reliability/credibility; but if a factor - like the foggy night - means the evidence's highest point is itself low, note it by analogy to IMM. Here the shoeprint's 5% figure is such a factor: its "highest" is modest alone, but powerful in conjunction with motive + the false denial. IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14。在评估证明价值(ss 97/98/101/135/137) 时,取证据“其最高值” -- 假定其被 接受;不得因可靠性/可信性打折扣。■ 张力所在:多数意见自己的“有雾之夜”例子让能见度限定了一项辨认所能达到 的高度。考试动作:切勿称其为可靠性/可信性;但若某因素 -- 如有雾之夜 -- 意味着该证据的最高点本身就低,则 按类比于 IMM加以指出。本案中鞋印的5% 数据正是这样一个因素:其“最高值”单独看尚属适中,但与动机+虚假否 认合取则威力强大。 F1 FACT ANALYSIS . INFERENCE CHAIN the 30% task skill Using the same R v Calder brief, build the proof for the set case "Dana Calder stabbed Sam Reyes". state the main arguments and, for one chain, the bottom-up [6. 140] links; then say whether the chains are conjunctive or convergent. (Fact analysis only - no law of evidence here. ) 运用同一份 R v Calder 卷宗,针对既定案件主张“Dana Calder 刺杀了 Sam Reyes"构建证明(proof):陈述各主要论 点,并就其中一条链给出自下而上的[6. 140]各环节联系;然后说明这些链究竟是合取式(conjunctive)还是汇聚式 (convergent)。(仅作事实分析 一此处不涉及证据法。) MODEL ANSWER - PROOF Main arguments (penultimate propositions, [6. 40]): (1) Calder had a strong, recently-inflamed motive; (2) a violent confrontation occurred in the workshop at the relevant time; (3) a person wearing Calder-type shoes was at the bloody scene; (4) Calder's false denial shows consciousness of guilt. Avoid the lazy "means/motive/opportunity" skeleton - it proves little here. 主要论点(次终极命题,[6. 40]):(1) Calder 具有一个强烈且近期被激化的动机;(2)在相关时间,工坊内发生了一场暴力对 峙;(3)一名穿着 Calder 同类鞋者曾出现在血腥现场;(4) Calder 的虚假否认表明罪责意识。避免“手段/动机/机会”这一 偷懒框架 -- 它在此证明不了多少。 2 One chain, bottom-up [6. 140] (each rung a separate proposition; phrase evidence as a courtroom event): "Priya will say in court Calder said 'I could kill him"" - Calder voiced lethal anger at Sam - Calder had a motive to harm Sam - (converges with the text in (b)) - main argument (1). 一条链,自下而上[6. 140](每一阶梯都是一个独立命题;把证据表述为一个法庭事件):“Priya 将在庭上陈述 Calder 说过 ‘我真想杀了他’”→ Calder 道出了对 Sam 的杀意之怒→ Calder 具有伤害 Sam 的动机→(与(b)中的短信汇聚)→主要论点 (1). 1 3 Name the relationship. The four main arguments are convergent [6. 210] on "Calder was the attacker" - each independently raises the probability. The high-value move is to add that motive x shoeprint x false- denial in conjunction [6. 220] make it far more likely than any alone - the Aytugrul "DNA x obsession" lesson. 指明这种关系。四个主要论点汇聚[6. 210]于“Calder 即攻击者” -- 每一个都独立地提高其可能性。高分动作是补充:动机 × 鞋印 × 虚假否认在合取 [6. 220] 下使其可能性远高于任何单独一项 -- 这正是 Aytugrul"DNA x 痴迷”所给出的教训。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! Inference-chain traps (straight from the feedback) 推理链(inference chain)陷阱(直接源自评分反馈) (1) Listing # proving - you must reason from each item, not catalogue it. (2) Don't stray into why you believe it in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (3) Pinpoint the exact evidence (the 5% figure, not "see the report"). (4) Word- limit: words inside chart boxes count toward the limit. (5) Name conjunction vs convergence explicitly - it is where the marks are. (1)罗列≠证明 -- 你必须从每一项展开推理,而非将其编目。(2)不要在“理论”部分跑去谈你为何相信它 -- 那属于“证 明”部分。(3)精确定位到确切的证据(要写“那个5% 的数据”,而非“见报告”)。(4)字数限制:图表方框内的文字计入 限制。(5)明确指明属合取还是汇聚 -- 那正是分数所在。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual PRACTICE . ISSUE -SPOTS + RECALL ISSUE - SPOTTING DRILLS + RECALL Short-answer drills & the open-book checklist 简答题演练与开卷核查清单 Three rapid issue-spots with model answers, then a where-to-look checklist 三处快速争点识别(issue-spot)附范例答案,随后是一份查阅指引清单 spot the clean pathway S1 SHORT ANSWER . HEARSAY / ADMISSIONS (AskSia facts - R v Mercer. ) The prosecution wants to tender a letter the accused, Mercer, wrote to his brother saying "I had to do it, I couldn't let her talk. " Defence counsel argues it is inadmissible hearsay. Which exception is the clean route, and why is reaching for s 60 or s 65 an error?

• 评估 PV（在 ss 97/98/101/135/137 等处）时，要把证据取“at its highest”：假设它被陪审团接受，不要因为“可靠性/可信性”去打折。[13]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf§ § The IMM probative-value trap (get it exactly right) § IMM 证明价值陷阱(务必准确把握) IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14. When assessing probative value (ss 97/98/101/135/137), take the evidence "at its highest" - assume it is accepted; do NOT discount for reliability/credibility. @ The tension: the majority's own "foggy night" example let visibility cap how high an identification could reach. Exam move: never call it reliability/credibility; but if a factor - like the foggy night - means the evidence's highest point is itself low, note it by analogy to IMM. Here the shoeprint's 5% figure is such a factor: its "highest" is modest alone, but powerful in conjunction with motive + the false denial. IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14。在评估证明价值(ss 97/98/101/135/137) 时,取证据“其最高值” -- 假定其被 接受;不得因可靠性/可信性打折扣。■ 张力所在:多数意见自己的“有雾之夜”例子让能见度限定了一项辨认所能达到 的高度。考试动作:切勿称其为可靠性/可信性;但若某因素 -- 如有雾之夜 -- 意味着该证据的最高点本身就低,则 按类比于 IMM加以指出。本案中鞋印的5% 数据正是这样一个因素:其“最高值”单独看尚属适中,但与动机+虚假否 认合取则威力强大。 F1 FACT ANALYSIS . INFERENCE CHAIN the 30% task skill Using the same R v Calder brief, build the proof for the set case "Dana Calder stabbed Sam Reyes". state the main arguments and, for one chain, the bottom-up [6. 140] links; then say whether the chains are conjunctive or convergent. (Fact analysis only - no law of evidence here. ) 运用同一份 R v Calder 卷宗,针对既定案件主张“Dana Calder 刺杀了 Sam Reyes"构建证明(proof):陈述各主要论 点,并就其中一条链给出自下而上的[6. 140]各环节联系;然后说明这些链究竟是合取式(conjunctive)还是汇聚式 (convergent)。(仅作事实分析 一此处不涉及证据法。) MODEL ANSWER - PROOF Main arguments (penultimate propositions, [6. 40]): (1) Calder had a strong, recently-inflamed motive; (2) a violent confrontation occurred in the workshop at the relevant time; (3) a person wearing Calder-type shoes was at the bloody scene; (4) Calder's false denial shows consciousness of guilt. Avoid the lazy "means/motive/opportunity" skeleton - it proves little here. 主要论点(次终极命题,[6. 40]):(1) Calder 具有一个强烈且近期被激化的动机;(2)在相关时间,工坊内发生了一场暴力对 峙;(3)一名穿着 Calder 同类鞋者曾出现在血腥现场;(4) Calder 的虚假否认表明罪责意识。避免“手段/动机/机会”这一 偷懒框架 -- 它在此证明不了多少。 2 One chain, bottom-up [6. 140] (each rung a separate proposition; phrase evidence as a courtroom event): "Priya will say in court Calder said 'I could kill him"" - Calder voiced lethal anger at Sam - Calder had a motive to harm Sam - (converges with the text in (b)) - main argument (1). 一条链,自下而上[6. 140](每一阶梯都是一个独立命题;把证据表述为一个法庭事件):“Priya 将在庭上陈述 Calder 说过 ‘我真想杀了他’”→ Calder 道出了对 Sam 的杀意之怒→ Calder 具有伤害 Sam 的动机→(与(b)中的短信汇聚)→主要论点 (1). 1 3 Name the relationship. The four main arguments are convergent [6. 210] on "Calder was the attacker" - each independently raises the probability. The high-value move is to add that motive x shoeprint x false- denial in conjunction [6. 220] make it far more likely than any alone - the Aytugrul "DNA x obsession" lesson. 指明这种关系。四个主要论点汇聚[6. 210]于“Calder 即攻击者” -- 每一个都独立地提高其可能性。高分动作是补充:动机 × 鞋印 × 虚假否认在合取 [6. 220] 下使其可能性远高于任何单独一项 -- 这正是 Aytugrul"DNA x 痴迷”所给出的教训。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! Inference-chain traps (straight from the feedback) 推理链(inference chain)陷阱(直接源自评分反馈) (1) Listing # proving - you must reason from each item, not catalogue it. (2) Don't stray into why you believe it in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (3) Pinpoint the exact evidence (the 5% figure, not "see the report"). (4) Word- limit: words inside chart boxes count toward the limit. (5) Name conjunction vs convergence explicitly - it is where the marks are. (1)罗列≠证明 -- 你必须从每一项展开推理,而非将其编目。(2)不要在“理论”部分跑去谈你为何相信它 -- 那属于“证 明”部分。(3)精确定位到确切的证据(要写“那个5% 的数据”,而非“见报告”)。(4)字数限制:图表方框内的文字计入 限制。(5)明确指明属合取还是汇聚 -- 那正是分数所在。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual PRACTICE . ISSUE -SPOTS + RECALL ISSUE - SPOTTING DRILLS + RECALL Short-answer drills & the open-book checklist 简答题演练与开卷核查清单 Three rapid issue-spots with model answers, then a where-to-look checklist 三处快速争点识别(issue-spot)附范例答案,随后是一份查阅指引清单 spot the clean pathway S1 SHORT ANSWER . HEARSAY / ADMISSIONS (AskSia facts - R v Mercer. ) The prosecution wants to tender a letter the accused, Mercer, wrote to his brother saying "I had to do it, I couldn't let her talk. " Defence counsel argues it is inadmissible hearsay. Which exception is the clean route, and why is reaching for s 60 or s 65 an error?
• 但材料也提示一个“张力”：如果某因素意味着它的“最高点本来就低”，你可以类比 IMM 去说“最高点有限”，但不要把它称为 reliability/credibility。[13]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf§ § The IMM probative-value trap (get it exactly right) § IMM 证明价值陷阱(务必准确把握) IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14. When assessing probative value (ss 97/98/101/135/137), take the evidence "at its highest" - assume it is accepted; do NOT discount for reliability/credibility. @ The tension: the majority's own "foggy night" example let visibility cap how high an identification could reach. Exam move: never call it reliability/credibility; but if a factor - like the foggy night - means the evidence's highest point is itself low, note it by analogy to IMM. Here the shoeprint's 5% figure is such a factor: its "highest" is modest alone, but powerful in conjunction with motive + the false denial. IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14。在评估证明价值(ss 97/98/101/135/137) 时,取证据“其最高值” -- 假定其被 接受;不得因可靠性/可信性打折扣。■ 张力所在:多数意见自己的“有雾之夜”例子让能见度限定了一项辨认所能达到 的高度。考试动作:切勿称其为可靠性/可信性;但若某因素 -- 如有雾之夜 -- 意味着该证据的最高点本身就低,则 按类比于 IMM加以指出。本案中鞋印的5% 数据正是这样一个因素:其“最高值”单独看尚属适中,但与动机+虚假否 认合取则威力强大。 F1 FACT ANALYSIS . INFERENCE CHAIN the 30% task skill Using the same R v Calder brief, build the proof for the set case "Dana Calder stabbed Sam Reyes". state the main arguments and, for one chain, the bottom-up [6. 140] links; then say whether the chains are conjunctive or convergent. (Fact analysis only - no law of evidence here. ) 运用同一份 R v Calder 卷宗,针对既定案件主张“Dana Calder 刺杀了 Sam Reyes"构建证明(proof):陈述各主要论 点,并就其中一条链给出自下而上的[6. 140]各环节联系;然后说明这些链究竟是合取式(conjunctive)还是汇聚式 (convergent)。(仅作事实分析 一此处不涉及证据法。) MODEL ANSWER - PROOF Main arguments (penultimate propositions, [6. 40]): (1) Calder had a strong, recently-inflamed motive; (2) a violent confrontation occurred in the workshop at the relevant time; (3) a person wearing Calder-type shoes was at the bloody scene; (4) Calder's false denial shows consciousness of guilt. Avoid the lazy "means/motive/opportunity" skeleton - it proves little here. 主要论点(次终极命题,[6. 40]):(1) Calder 具有一个强烈且近期被激化的动机;(2)在相关时间,工坊内发生了一场暴力对 峙;(3)一名穿着 Calder 同类鞋者曾出现在血腥现场;(4) Calder 的虚假否认表明罪责意识。避免“手段/动机/机会”这一 偷懒框架 -- 它在此证明不了多少。 2 One chain, bottom-up [6. 140] (each rung a separate proposition; phrase evidence as a courtroom event): "Priya will say in court Calder said 'I could kill him"" - Calder voiced lethal anger at Sam - Calder had a motive to harm Sam - (converges with the text in (b)) - main argument (1). 一条链,自下而上[6. 140](每一阶梯都是一个独立命题;把证据表述为一个法庭事件):“Priya 将在庭上陈述 Calder 说过 ‘我真想杀了他’”→ Calder 道出了对 Sam 的杀意之怒→ Calder 具有伤害 Sam 的动机→(与(b)中的短信汇聚)→主要论点 (1). 1 3 Name the relationship. The four main arguments are convergent [6. 210] on "Calder was the attacker" - each independently raises the probability. The high-value move is to add that motive x shoeprint x false- denial in conjunction [6. 220] make it far more likely than any alone - the Aytugrul "DNA x obsession" lesson. 指明这种关系。四个主要论点汇聚[6. 210]于“Calder 即攻击者” -- 每一个都独立地提高其可能性。高分动作是补充:动机 × 鞋印 × 虚假否认在合取 [6. 220] 下使其可能性远高于任何单独一项 -- 这正是 Aytugrul"DNA x 痴迷”所给出的教训。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! Inference-chain traps (straight from the feedback) 推理链(inference chain)陷阱(直接源自评分反馈) (1) Listing # proving - you must reason from each item, not catalogue it. (2) Don't stray into why you believe it in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (3) Pinpoint the exact evidence (the 5% figure, not "see the report"). (4) Word- limit: words inside chart boxes count toward the limit. (5) Name conjunction vs convergence explicitly - it is where the marks are. (1)罗列≠证明 -- 你必须从每一项展开推理,而非将其编目。(2)不要在“理论”部分跑去谈你为何相信它 -- 那属于“证 明”部分。(3)精确定位到确切的证据(要写“那个5% 的数据”,而非“见报告”)。(4)字数限制:图表方框内的文字计入 限制。(5)明确指明属合取还是汇聚 -- 那正是分数所在。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual PRACTICE . ISSUE -SPOTS + RECALL ISSUE - SPOTTING DRILLS + RECALL Short-answer drills & the open-book checklist 简答题演练与开卷核查清单 Three rapid issue-spots with model answers, then a where-to-look checklist 三处快速争点识别(issue-spot)附范例答案,随后是一份查阅指引清单 spot the clean pathway S1 SHORT ANSWER . HEARSAY / ADMISSIONS (AskSia facts - R v Mercer. ) The prosecution wants to tender a letter the accused, Mercer, wrote to his brother saying "I had to do it, I couldn't let her talk. " Defence counsel argues it is inadmissible hearsay. Which exception is the clean route, and why is reaching for s 60 or s 65 an error?

4.4 Tendency / Coincidence：ss 97–101（近年/重点主题提示）

s 97 tendency rule：用于证明“倾向/品格/惯常行为”的证据，原则不采，除非（a）notice（b）significant probative value。[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdfasksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-Laws50037 · side 1/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES Open-book . Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) . confirm your current exam cover sheet . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . tendency, admissions, discretions & index [6. 210]- [6. 220] (c) highly probably reliable or maker = child victim LAWS 50037 Evidence and Proof MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL . JD . EVIDENCE ACT 2008 (VIC) OPEN-BOOK ANSWER MAP Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 Tendency . admissions . discretions 9 . Tendency & Coincidence PT3. 6 The "patterns of human behaviour" topic - front and centre in recent exams. s94 scope; s95 use-bound. S97 TENDENCY RULE evidence of character/conduct/tendency, to prove a tendency to act/think a particular way, is inadmissible UNLESS (a) notice AND (b) significant probative value . 3-step test: (1) does it prove the underlying facts? (2) do they amount to a pattern (similar? close in time)? (3) does the tendency make it significantly more likely the accused did the charged act? S98 COINCIDENCE RULE 2+ events, to prove a person's act/state of mind, on the basis that - given similarities - it is improbable they occurred coincidentally. Same notice + sig. PV gate. 4 elements: 2+ events . to prove act/state of mind . coincidence improbable . by similarities. ss99-100 notice / dispense. 9b . s101 - Prosecution Restriction THE BIG ONE S101 (CRIMINAL, PROSECUTION) tendency/coincidence about an accused unusable unless probative value SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHS any prejudicial effect.

s 98 coincidence rule：用“相似性→巧合不太可能”来证明某人行为/心理状态；同样需要 notice + significant PV。[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdfasksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-Laws50037 · side 1/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES Open-book . Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) . confirm your current exam cover sheet . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . tendency, admissions, discretions & index [6. 210]- [6. 220] (c) highly probably reliable or maker = child victim LAWS 50037 Evidence and Proof MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL . JD . EVIDENCE ACT 2008 (VIC) OPEN-BOOK ANSWER MAP Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 Tendency . admissions . discretions 9 . Tendency & Coincidence PT3. 6 The "patterns of human behaviour" topic - front and centre in recent exams. s94 scope; s95 use-bound. S97 TENDENCY RULE evidence of character/conduct/tendency, to prove a tendency to act/think a particular way, is inadmissible UNLESS (a) notice AND (b) significant probative value . 3-step test: (1) does it prove the underlying facts? (2) do they amount to a pattern (similar? close in time)? (3) does the tendency make it significantly more likely the accused did the charged act? S98 COINCIDENCE RULE 2+ events, to prove a person's act/state of mind, on the basis that - given similarities - it is improbable they occurred coincidentally. Same notice + sig. PV gate. 4 elements: 2+ events . to prove act/state of mind . coincidence improbable . by similarities. ss99-100 notice / dispense. 9b . s101 - Prosecution Restriction THE BIG ONE S101 (CRIMINAL, PROSECUTION) tendency/coincidence about an accused unusable unless probative value SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHS any prejudicial effect.

s 101（刑事检方对 accused 的 tendency/coincidence）：材料强调这是“大点”，要求 PV substantially outweighs prejudicial effect（更严）。[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdfasksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-Laws50037 · side 1/2 AskSia STUDY SHEET SERIES Open-book . Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) . confirm your current exam cover sheet . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . tendency, admissions, discretions & index [6. 210]- [6. 220] (c) highly probably reliable or maker = child victim LAWS 50037 Evidence and Proof MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL . JD . EVIDENCE ACT 2008 (VIC) OPEN-BOOK ANSWER MAP Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 Tendency . admissions . discretions 9 . Tendency & Coincidence PT3. 6 The "patterns of human behaviour" topic - front and centre in recent exams. s94 scope; s95 use-bound. S97 TENDENCY RULE evidence of character/conduct/tendency, to prove a tendency to act/think a particular way, is inadmissible UNLESS (a) notice AND (b) significant probative value . 3-step test: (1) does it prove the underlying facts? (2) do they amount to a pattern (similar? close in time)? (3) does the tendency make it significantly more likely the accused did the charged act? S98 COINCIDENCE RULE 2+ events, to prove a person's act/state of mind, on the basis that - given similarities - it is improbable they occurred coincidentally. Same notice + sig. PV gate. 4 elements: 2+ events . to prove act/state of mind . coincidence improbable . by similarities. ss99-100 notice / dispense. 9b . s101 - Prosecution Restriction THE BIG ONE S101 (CRIMINAL, PROSECUTION) tendency/coincidence about an accused unusable unless probative value SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHS any prejudicial effect.

4.5 Opinion：s 79 专家意见的 basis rule（常见丢分点）

s 79 test（四要素清单）：有专门知识领域 + 证人确有该知识 + 意见“wholly/substantially based on”该知识（basis rule：把假设与推理链讲清）+ 表达足够细节让法庭评估。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf6c . s79 - Expert Opinion THE BIG + Basis Rule ONE S79 TEST rule off if a person has specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, and the opinion is "wholly or substantially based on" that knowledge. 4-element checklist: (i) a genuine, organised field of knowledge; (ii) the witness has it (training/study/experience); (iii) the opinion is wholly/substantially based on it - the basis rule : expose the assumptions + reasoning; (iv) communicated in enough detail to evaluate. s79(2) expressly includes child development/behaviour. No separate reliability requirement at s79 - reliability bites at s137, not here. DASREEF PTY LTD V HAWCHAR (2011) 243 CLR 588 The basis rule: the expert must show how the field's knowledge applies to the proved facts; an opinion with an unexposed/unproven basis is not "wholly or substantially based on" specialised knowledge. HONEYSETT V THE QUEEN (2014) 253 CLR 122 An anatomist's "body-mapping" CCTV comparison was not specialised knowledge - subjective impressions dressed up as expertise -> inadmissible under s79. Also: Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 (Heydon JA's basis-rule statement); HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 (no straying beyond actual expertise). 7 . Fact Analysis - the 30% Task PROOF . STRAND 1 The advice on evidence has 3 parts; the task = parts 1- 2, performed without the law of evidence: ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 1 THEORY - the factual story ([5. 70] criteria) 2 PROOF - inference chains ([6. 140]) 3 LAW - admissibility = the 70% exam Case [5. 30] = a single factual proposition with legal consequences (the destination). Theory = the narrative that explains all the evidence (the route). & State the case at the right level. Don't add "intentionally" / "murdered" if the set case is just "the accused stabbed V" - surplus = needless work + error. 7b · Choosing the Theory PROOF [5. 70]- [5. 170]

关键提醒：材料明确说s 79 没有单独的“可靠性门槛”；可靠性更常在 s 137 去处理。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf6c . s79 - Expert Opinion THE BIG + Basis Rule ONE S79 TEST rule off if a person has specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, and the opinion is "wholly or substantially based on" that knowledge. 4-element checklist: (i) a genuine, organised field of knowledge; (ii) the witness has it (training/study/experience); (iii) the opinion is wholly/substantially based on it - the basis rule : expose the assumptions + reasoning; (iv) communicated in enough detail to evaluate. s79(2) expressly includes child development/behaviour. No separate reliability requirement at s79 - reliability bites at s137, not here. DASREEF PTY LTD V HAWCHAR (2011) 243 CLR 588 The basis rule: the expert must show how the field's knowledge applies to the proved facts; an opinion with an unexposed/unproven basis is not "wholly or substantially based on" specialised knowledge. HONEYSETT V THE QUEEN (2014) 253 CLR 122 An anatomist's "body-mapping" CCTV comparison was not specialised knowledge - subjective impressions dressed up as expertise -> inadmissible under s79. Also: Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 (Heydon JA's basis-rule statement); HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 (no straying beyond actual expertise). 7 . Fact Analysis - the 30% Task PROOF . STRAND 1 The advice on evidence has 3 parts; the task = parts 1- 2, performed without the law of evidence: ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 1 THEORY - the factual story ([5. 70] criteria) 2 PROOF - inference chains ([6. 140]) 3 LAW - admissibility = the 70% exam Case [5. 30] = a single factual proposition with legal consequences (the destination). Theory = the narrative that explains all the evidence (the route). & State the case at the right level. Don't add "intentionally" / "murdered" if the set case is just "the accused stabbed V" - surplus = needless work + error. 7b · Choosing the Theory PROOF [5. 70]- [5. 170]

代表案提示：Dasreef（basis rule）、Honeysett（伪装成专家的主观印象）。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf6c . s79 - Expert Opinion THE BIG + Basis Rule ONE S79 TEST rule off if a person has specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, and the opinion is "wholly or substantially based on" that knowledge. 4-element checklist: (i) a genuine, organised field of knowledge; (ii) the witness has it (training/study/experience); (iii) the opinion is wholly/substantially based on it - the basis rule : expose the assumptions + reasoning; (iv) communicated in enough detail to evaluate. s79(2) expressly includes child development/behaviour. No separate reliability requirement at s79 - reliability bites at s137, not here. DASREEF PTY LTD V HAWCHAR (2011) 243 CLR 588 The basis rule: the expert must show how the field's knowledge applies to the proved facts; an opinion with an unexposed/unproven basis is not "wholly or substantially based on" specialised knowledge. HONEYSETT V THE QUEEN (2014) 253 CLR 122 An anatomist's "body-mapping" CCTV comparison was not specialised knowledge - subjective impressions dressed up as expertise -> inadmissible under s79. Also: Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 (Heydon JA's basis-rule statement); HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 (no straying beyond actual expertise). 7 . Fact Analysis - the 30% Task PROOF . STRAND 1 The advice on evidence has 3 parts; the task = parts 1- 2, performed without the law of evidence: ADVICE ON EVIDENCE 1 THEORY - the factual story ([5. 70] criteria) 2 PROOF - inference chains ([6. 140]) 3 LAW - admissibility = the 70% exam Case [5. 30] = a single factual proposition with legal consequences (the destination). Theory = the narrative that explains all the evidence (the route). & State the case at the right level. Don't add "intentionally" / "murdered" if the set case is just "the accused stabbed V" - surplus = needless work + error. 7b · Choosing the Theory PROOF [5. 70]- [5. 170]

4.6 Post-offence conduct / 纯行为：别乱套 admissions（材料点名的坑）

材料举例提醒：纯行为（如逃跑）不是“representation”，不要用 s 81 admissions 去硬套；它可能落在 Jury Directions Act 的“涉罪行为指引”框架里。[7]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf刀(不当/非法取得):违反澳大利亚法律取得→ s 138 -- 不予采纳,除非采纳它的可取性压倒其不可取性,并权衡 s 138(3)各项因素(不当行为的严重性、是否蓄意/轻率、证据的重要性、合法取得的难度等;参 Bunning v Cross (1978))。 举证责任在寻求采纳的一方。 2 Flight (post-offence conduct): running is pure conduct, not a "previous representation," so the Evidence Act admissions rules don't reach it - it is governed by the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). As incriminating conduct, s 21: the jury may use it only if the only reasonable explanation is consistent with guilt (flight is also consistent with panic/fear - the innocent explanation must be excluded). 逃跑(犯罪后行为):逃跑是纯粹行为,并非“先前陈述”,故 Evidence Act 的自认/供述规则触及不到它 -- 它由 Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)支配。作为涉罪行为,依 s 21:陪审团仅在其唯一合理解释与罪责相符时方可使用它(逃跑也与 惊慌/恐惧相符 -- 必须排除那个清白的解释)。 - Marker note: keep the two filters distinct - s 138 (lawfulness/policy balance for the knife) vs the JDA s 21 incriminating-conduct test for the flight. Don't analyse pure conduct under s 81 - admissions need a "representation. " AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual 评分者注解:须将两道过滤分清 一 针对那把刀的 s 138(合法性/政策权衡)vs 针对逃跑的 JDA s 21 罪证行为检验。切勿 在 s 81 之下分析纯粹的行为 一 自认需要一项“陈述(representation)”。 ★ Recall checklist - the open-book navigator 回顾清单 一 开卷导航器 Every chain: relevance (s 55/56) first. Hearsay - intended assertion (s 59); exceptions s 60 (not admissions, s 60(3)), first-hand ss 65/66/66A, business records s 69. Opinion - s 76; lay s 78, expert s 79 (basis rule - Dasreef/Honeysett). Accused's own words - admission s 81 (then ss 84/85/90; cautioning s 139). Patterns - tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 (Hughes) + Vic s 101 "substantially outweighs". Discretions - s 137 (must) / s 135 (may) / s 138 (improperly obtained, Bunning v Cross). Probative value - IMM "at its highest. " Conduct/lies - JDA s 21. Always: state the exact use, then how & why + the contingency. Confirm permitted materials on your cover sheet. 每一条链:先看相关性(s 55/56)。传闻→意图的主张(s 59);例外见 s 60(不含自认/供述,s 60(3))、第一手 ss 65/66/66A、业务记录 s 69。意见→s 76;非专家 s 78,专家 s 79(基础规则 -- Dasreef/Honeysett)。被告人自 己的言辞→自认/供述 s 81(然后 ss 84/85/90;警示 s 139)。行为模式→倾向 s 97/ 巧合 s 98(Hughes) +维州 s 101“在实质上压倒”。裁量权→ s 137(必须)/ s 135(可)/ s 138(不当取得,Bunning v Cross)。证明价值→ IMM"其最高值”。行为/谎言→ JDA s 21。始终:先说明确切用途,然后说明如何及为何+不确定因素。请核对封面页 上获准的材料。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual AskSia Library SUBJECT BIBLE . ASKSIA MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL SEMESTER 1 . 2026 CASE THE COMPLETE SUBJECT BIBLE Evidence and Proof 证据与证明 BUILD THE INFERENCE CHAIN . THEN RUN IT THROUGH THE ACT. 先建推理链,再过《证据法》 · 开卷可带 LAWS50037 . MELBOURNE JD . UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE 中英双语版 · BILINGUAL EDITION 英文主讲,中文随行 一 考试要点与术语保留英文原词 A JD study companion built around this subject's own two-strand spine: the fact-analysis skill - case, theory and the Wigmorean inference chains of an advice on evidence - and the law of evidence, the admissibility rules of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (relevance -+ hearsay -> opinion - tendency - admissions -> the discretions). The 70% final is a 3-hour open-book exam - so the win is a tabbed "where to look" navigator, not memorised summaries. Subject Bible . AskSia Independent study companion, not affiliated with or endorsed by the University of Melbourne. Not legal advice. Corrections: takedowns@asksia. ai PREFACE - HOW TO USE THIS BOOK One book, three moments 一本书,三个时刻 Wherever you are in the semester - and whatever you carry into the exam - start here 无论你身处学期何处 一 也无论你带什么进考场 一都从这里开始 TL;DR. This is not a re-typed copy of Proof or Uniform Evidence. It is a self-contained map of the two skills LAWS50037 assesses: building the proof (theory + inference chains) and applying the law (admissibility under the Victorian Act). Each rule is stated plainly, tied to its leading case and its section number, then drilled on neutral worked facts - so the same pages serve you three ways across the ten seminars.[8]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect (one line) COMPANION VICTORIAN STATUTES Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 18-24 Request-and-direction model for jury directions in Victorian criminal trials (counsel requests; judge gives what is necessary). Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 41-42 Directions on post-offence / incriminating conduct (consciousness of guilt) - the W9 topic. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 458-465 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 464- 464J Powers of arrest and search - the lawfulness analysis feeding s 138. Custody & questioning of suspects regime (admissions; s 464H recording) - W10-11. Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), Dictionary Pt 2 cll 1 & 4 Defines "representation" / asserted fact (cl 1, drives s 59) and when a person is "not available" (cl 4, drives ss 63/65). AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual GLOSSARY . 1/3 - GLOSSARY BILINGUAL · 双语词汇表 LAWS50037 in two languages LAWS50037 双语对照 Every key term, doctrine, maxim & section - with an accurate X gloss and a one-line meaning 每一个关键术语、原理、格言与条文 一配以准确的中文 gloss 与一行释义 TL;DR. This is the recall layer for the open-book exam - the vocabulary of both strands: the Proof fact- analysis skill and the Uniform Evidence admissibility spine. Cover the right column and define each term cold; in an open-book exam the win is knowing where to look, and that starts with naming the doctrine and its section. Jurisdiction throughout = Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). 一句话概要。这是为开卷考试而设的记忆层 一两条主线的术语:Proof 的事实分析技能与 Uniform Evidence 的可采性主 轴。遮住右栏,凭空界定每一术语;在开卷考试中,制胜之道在于知道该往何处查,而这始于说出该原理及其条文之名。全文 管辖区域 = Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)。 Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Fact analysis - the Proof skill · 事实分析(待证/推断) Case 案件主张/ 待证命题 The single factual proposition with a legal consequence you must prove - the destination. Theory 案件理论/ 事实叙事

5）30% Fact Analysis Task：你该怎么复习（因为它也是 Final 的地基）

5.1 Part 1：Theory（事实理论）

最关键的评分导向：评分者要的是

• 一个单一、可信、全面、内部一致的叙事
• 讲清“how & why”，不是流水账。[10]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfONE item, ONE purpose at a time - admissibility is use-relative. \ Ladder: relevance (ss 55-56) - rule - exception - discretions (ss 135-138). Y Rules are cumulative, not alternatives. Y s 137 is mandatory in crime. Advice = theory -> proof -+ impact; the 70% exam is the impact part. Y Always end each item: admitted? and for what use? Y It is a future trial, not a review of the past one. √一次一项证据、一种用途 一可采性与用途相关。√阶梯:相关性(ss 55-56)→规则→例外→ 裁量权(ss 135-138)。√ 各规则是累积性的,而非互斥选项。√s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。√ 意见书=理论→证明→影响; 70% 的考试是影响那一部分。√每一项都要以此收尾:是否采纳?用作何种用途?√ 这是一场未来的审判,而非对过去 那场审判的复审。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . THEORY - STRAND 1 . FACT ANALYSIS FACT ANALYSIS TASK . 30% Case theory: choosing the factual theory 案件理论:选定事实理论(factual theory) The nine criteria the 30% task is marked against (Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) 占30%的作业据以评分的九项标准(Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) TL;DR. Fact analysis answers two questions before any law: (1) what must we prove? (the case) and (2) how do we prove it? (the proof). The case <1+3}> is the single legally-significant proposition; the theory «###it> is the story that makes it true. You pick the theory that best satisfies the nine Proof [5. 70] criteria. 一句话概要。事实分析在涉及任何法律之前先回答两个问题:(1)我们必须证明什么?(案件主张(case))与(2)我们如何证 明?(证明(proof))。案件主张《案件主张》是单一的具有法律意义的命题;事实理论(theory)<事实理论》则是使其成立的故 事叙述。你应选取最能满足Proof[5. 70]九项标准的理论。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 1 of the advice: state a factual theory that best satisfies the [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria - without applying the law of evidence. Markers reward a single, plausible, comprehensive, internally-consistent narrative that follows the set case exactly and tells the how and why, not a bare chronology of events. 意见书第1部分:陈述一个最能满足[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标准的事实理论 一而不适用证据法。评分者奖励一个单一的、可 信的、全面的、内部一致的叙事,它严格遵循既定案件主张并讲清如何与为何,而非对各事件的干巴巴的时间顺序罗 列。 CASE VS THEORY . PROOF [5. 30] CASE << 待证命题>="a single factual proposition . . . to the effect that an event with legal consequences has occurred. " The destination. THEORY <A>> = "a narrative or story . . . an explanation for all the evidence. " The route. # Criterion ([5. 70]-[5. 170]) What it demands of the theory 1 Consistency with instructions The theory must serve the set case you were instructed to advise on - no more, no less. Arguing the opposite of the set case is a fatal error. 2 Minimalism Assume as little as possible; do not multiply contested propositions. 3 Simplicity The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence. 4 Legal significance The theory must support a proposition carrying the required legal consequence. 5 Consistency Internally coherent; no self-contradiction. 6 Plausibility Believable against ordinary human experience and the brief. 7 Clarity Communicable to a third party (even a non-lawyer). 8 Comprehensiveness The heavily-marked one. Take a clear position on all the evidence - especially the ambiguous or complicating facts. Reaching 'no conclusion' on a contested event is the cardinal error. 9 Flexibility Able to absorb new evidence without collapsing. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual

九条标准（Proof [5.70]-[5.170]）里最“重分”的一条：Comprehensiveness

• 对所有证据（尤其是“模糊/麻烦的”）必须表态；“我无法判断/无法下结论”是大忌。[10]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfONE item, ONE purpose at a time - admissibility is use-relative. \ Ladder: relevance (ss 55-56) - rule - exception - discretions (ss 135-138). Y Rules are cumulative, not alternatives. Y s 137 is mandatory in crime. Advice = theory -> proof -+ impact; the 70% exam is the impact part. Y Always end each item: admitted? and for what use? Y It is a future trial, not a review of the past one. √一次一项证据、一种用途 一可采性与用途相关。√阶梯:相关性(ss 55-56)→规则→例外→ 裁量权(ss 135-138)。√ 各规则是累积性的,而非互斥选项。√s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。√ 意见书=理论→证明→影响; 70% 的考试是影响那一部分。√每一项都要以此收尾:是否采纳?用作何种用途?√ 这是一场未来的审判,而非对过去 那场审判的复审。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . THEORY - STRAND 1 . FACT ANALYSIS FACT ANALYSIS TASK . 30% Case theory: choosing the factual theory 案件理论:选定事实理论(factual theory) The nine criteria the 30% task is marked against (Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) 占30%的作业据以评分的九项标准(Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) TL;DR. Fact analysis answers two questions before any law: (1) what must we prove? (the case) and (2) how do we prove it? (the proof). The case <1+3}> is the single legally-significant proposition; the theory «###it> is the story that makes it true. You pick the theory that best satisfies the nine Proof [5. 70] criteria. 一句话概要。事实分析在涉及任何法律之前先回答两个问题:(1)我们必须证明什么?(案件主张(case))与(2)我们如何证 明?(证明(proof))。案件主张《案件主张》是单一的具有法律意义的命题;事实理论(theory)<事实理论》则是使其成立的故 事叙述。你应选取最能满足Proof[5. 70]九项标准的理论。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 1 of the advice: state a factual theory that best satisfies the [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria - without applying the law of evidence. Markers reward a single, plausible, comprehensive, internally-consistent narrative that follows the set case exactly and tells the how and why, not a bare chronology of events. 意见书第1部分:陈述一个最能满足[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标准的事实理论 一而不适用证据法。评分者奖励一个单一的、可 信的、全面的、内部一致的叙事,它严格遵循既定案件主张并讲清如何与为何,而非对各事件的干巴巴的时间顺序罗 列。 CASE VS THEORY . PROOF [5. 30] CASE << 待证命题>="a single factual proposition . . . to the effect that an event with legal consequences has occurred. " The destination. THEORY <A>> = "a narrative or story . . . an explanation for all the evidence. " The route. # Criterion ([5. 70]-[5. 170]) What it demands of the theory 1 Consistency with instructions The theory must serve the set case you were instructed to advise on - no more, no less. Arguing the opposite of the set case is a fatal error. 2 Minimalism Assume as little as possible; do not multiply contested propositions. 3 Simplicity The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence. 4 Legal significance The theory must support a proposition carrying the required legal consequence. 5 Consistency Internally coherent; no self-contradiction. 6 Plausibility Believable against ordinary human experience and the brief. 7 Clarity Communicable to a third party (even a non-lawyer). 8 Comprehensiveness The heavily-marked one. Take a clear position on all the evidence - especially the ambiguous or complicating facts. Reaching 'no conclusion' on a contested event is the cardinal error. 9 Flexibility Able to absorb new evidence without collapsing. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual

Theory 阶段常见失分：[11]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf! Theory-stage errors that lose marks 理论阶段失分的错误 (1) Arguing the opposite of the set case. (2) Bare chronology with no analysis. (3) Mislabelling the case - adding 'intentionally' or 'murdered' when the set case is narrower (e. g. just 'the accused stabbed V') creates needless work. (4) A victim-centred theory in a perpetrator case - the how and why is about the perpetrator. (5) Putting why you believe it (the evidence) in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (1)论证与既定案件主张相反的内容。(2)干巴巴的时间顺序罗列而无任何分析。(3)给案件主张贴错标签 一 当既定案件 主张更为狭窄时(例如仅为‘被告刺伤了V'),却添加‘故意地’或‘谋杀’,徒增不必要的工作量。(4)在一个以加害人为中 心的案件中给出以被害人为中心的理论一其‘如何与为何’关乎的是加害人。(5)把你为何相信它(即证据)放进理论中 - 那属于证明部分。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . PROOF - STRAND 1 . PROOF Proving the theory: inference chains & the chart 证成理论:推理链(inference chains) 与图表 The [6. 140] relation; building blocks; conjunction vs convergence [6. 140]的关系;构成要件;合取(conjunction)与汇聚(convergence)之别 TL;DR. Part 2 turns the theory into a proof - a Wigmorean chart climbing from a courtroom event through inferred factual propositions to the case, every connecting line obeying the [6. 140] relation. Where chains meet, say whether they are conjunctive (all needed) or convergent (independent, cumulative). 一句话概要。第 2部分将理论转化为证明(proof)- 一张维格莫尔式(Wigmorean)图表(chart),从某一法庭事件(event) 出发,经由推断出的事实命题(factual propositions)攀升至案件主张(case),每一条连接线都须遵守[6. 140]的关系。在各 链相交之处,须说明它们究竟是合取式(conjunctive)(全部都需要)还是汇聚式(convergent)(彼此独立、累积叠加)。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 2: identify, with precision, the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony available in a future trial, arrange them with your own intermediate propositions into the [6. 140] relation, and classify chains as conjunctive or convergent. Pinpoint the exact part of the evidence relied on - never 'see the witness statement at large'. Chart-box words count toward the word limit. 第2 部分:精确指明在未来审判中可获得的书证/实物证据以及在世证人(living-witness)的证言,用你自己拟定的中 间命题将它们排入[6. 140]关系,并将各链归类为合取式或汇聚式。精确指出所依赖的证据的确切部分 一 绝不可写‘见 证人陈述全文’。图表框内的文字计入字数限制。 THE CORE INFERENCE RELATION . PROOF [6. 140] A connecting line in the chart means: "if the factual proposition at the BOTTOM of the connecting line is true then this makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that the proposition at the TOP of the connecting line is true. " Note: this is the SAME logic as legal (s 55) - the chart method IS the relevance test made concrete. < 相关性即推断的逻辑关系> The four building blocks 四项构成要件 Building block Definition (Proof Ch 6) Evidence (bottom) A factual proposition about an event that will occur in the trial - phrase it as "[Witness] will say in court that . . . " or "[Exhibit] is shown and it shows . . . ", never as the underlying fact. Factual proposition (middle) An intermediate inferred fact about the world, devised by the advocate; each must be consistent with the theory. How chains relate 各条推理链如何相互关联 Relationship Para

• 跑去论证“相反的 set case”（致命）。
• 只写时间线不分析。
• 把 case 写得过头（例如 set case 只要“stabbed”，你却加上“intentionally/murdered”）。
• Theory 里写“为什么相信”（证据论证）——那是 proof 部分的事。

5.2 Part 2：Proof（推理链 / inference chains）

[6.140] 核心推断关系（你要会原句表达）：一条连线表示：如果下方命题为真，则它使上方命题“更可能（more likely than otherwise）”。这套逻辑与 s 55 相关性是同一套推断逻辑。[11]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf! Theory-stage errors that lose marks 理论阶段失分的错误 (1) Arguing the opposite of the set case. (2) Bare chronology with no analysis. (3) Mislabelling the case - adding 'intentionally' or 'murdered' when the set case is narrower (e. g. just 'the accused stabbed V') creates needless work. (4) A victim-centred theory in a perpetrator case - the how and why is about the perpetrator. (5) Putting why you believe it (the evidence) in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (1)论证与既定案件主张相反的内容。(2)干巴巴的时间顺序罗列而无任何分析。(3)给案件主张贴错标签 一 当既定案件 主张更为狭窄时(例如仅为‘被告刺伤了V'),却添加‘故意地’或‘谋杀’,徒增不必要的工作量。(4)在一个以加害人为中 心的案件中给出以被害人为中心的理论一其‘如何与为何’关乎的是加害人。(5)把你为何相信它(即证据)放进理论中 - 那属于证明部分。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . PROOF - STRAND 1 . PROOF Proving the theory: inference chains & the chart 证成理论:推理链(inference chains) 与图表 The [6. 140] relation; building blocks; conjunction vs convergence [6. 140]的关系;构成要件;合取(conjunction)与汇聚(convergence)之别 TL;DR. Part 2 turns the theory into a proof - a Wigmorean chart climbing from a courtroom event through inferred factual propositions to the case, every connecting line obeying the [6. 140] relation. Where chains meet, say whether they are conjunctive (all needed) or convergent (independent, cumulative). 一句话概要。第 2部分将理论转化为证明(proof)- 一张维格莫尔式(Wigmorean)图表(chart),从某一法庭事件(event) 出发,经由推断出的事实命题(factual propositions)攀升至案件主张(case),每一条连接线都须遵守[6. 140]的关系。在各 链相交之处,须说明它们究竟是合取式(conjunctive)(全部都需要)还是汇聚式(convergent)(彼此独立、累积叠加)。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 2: identify, with precision, the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony available in a future trial, arrange them with your own intermediate propositions into the [6. 140] relation, and classify chains as conjunctive or convergent. Pinpoint the exact part of the evidence relied on - never 'see the witness statement at large'. Chart-box words count toward the word limit. 第2 部分:精确指明在未来审判中可获得的书证/实物证据以及在世证人(living-witness)的证言,用你自己拟定的中 间命题将它们排入[6. 140]关系,并将各链归类为合取式或汇聚式。精确指出所依赖的证据的确切部分 一 绝不可写‘见 证人陈述全文’。图表框内的文字计入字数限制。 THE CORE INFERENCE RELATION . PROOF [6. 140] A connecting line in the chart means: "if the factual proposition at the BOTTOM of the connecting line is true then this makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that the proposition at the TOP of the connecting line is true. " Note: this is the SAME logic as legal (s 55) - the chart method IS the relevance test made concrete. < 相关性即推断的逻辑关系> The four building blocks 四项构成要件 Building block Definition (Proof Ch 6) Evidence (bottom) A factual proposition about an event that will occur in the trial - phrase it as "[Witness] will say in court that . . . " or "[Exhibit] is shown and it shows . . . ", never as the underlying fact. Factual proposition (middle) An intermediate inferred fact about the world, devised by the advocate; each must be consistent with the theory. How chains relate 各条推理链如何相互关联 Relationship Para

写作硬规则（材料反复强调）：[11]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf! Theory-stage errors that lose marks 理论阶段失分的错误 (1) Arguing the opposite of the set case. (2) Bare chronology with no analysis. (3) Mislabelling the case - adding 'intentionally' or 'murdered' when the set case is narrower (e. g. just 'the accused stabbed V') creates needless work. (4) A victim-centred theory in a perpetrator case - the how and why is about the perpetrator. (5) Putting why you believe it (the evidence) in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (1)论证与既定案件主张相反的内容。(2)干巴巴的时间顺序罗列而无任何分析。(3)给案件主张贴错标签 一 当既定案件 主张更为狭窄时(例如仅为‘被告刺伤了V'),却添加‘故意地’或‘谋杀’,徒增不必要的工作量。(4)在一个以加害人为中 心的案件中给出以被害人为中心的理论一其‘如何与为何’关乎的是加害人。(5)把你为何相信它(即证据)放进理论中 - 那属于证明部分。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . PROOF - STRAND 1 . PROOF Proving the theory: inference chains & the chart 证成理论:推理链(inference chains) 与图表 The [6. 140] relation; building blocks; conjunction vs convergence [6. 140]的关系;构成要件;合取(conjunction)与汇聚(convergence)之别 TL;DR. Part 2 turns the theory into a proof - a Wigmorean chart climbing from a courtroom event through inferred factual propositions to the case, every connecting line obeying the [6. 140] relation. Where chains meet, say whether they are conjunctive (all needed) or convergent (independent, cumulative). 一句话概要。第 2部分将理论转化为证明(proof)- 一张维格莫尔式(Wigmorean)图表(chart),从某一法庭事件(event) 出发,经由推断出的事实命题(factual propositions)攀升至案件主张(case),每一条连接线都须遵守[6. 140]的关系。在各 链相交之处,须说明它们究竟是合取式(conjunctive)(全部都需要)还是汇聚式(convergent)(彼此独立、累积叠加)。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 2: identify, with precision, the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony available in a future trial, arrange them with your own intermediate propositions into the [6. 140] relation, and classify chains as conjunctive or convergent. Pinpoint the exact part of the evidence relied on - never 'see the witness statement at large'. Chart-box words count toward the word limit. 第2 部分:精确指明在未来审判中可获得的书证/实物证据以及在世证人(living-witness)的证言,用你自己拟定的中 间命题将它们排入[6. 140]关系,并将各链归类为合取式或汇聚式。精确指出所依赖的证据的确切部分 一 绝不可写‘见 证人陈述全文’。图表框内的文字计入字数限制。 THE CORE INFERENCE RELATION . PROOF [6. 140] A connecting line in the chart means: "if the factual proposition at the BOTTOM of the connecting line is true then this makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that the proposition at the TOP of the connecting line is true. " Note: this is the SAME logic as legal (s 55) - the chart method IS the relevance test made concrete. < 相关性即推断的逻辑关系> The four building blocks 四项构成要件 Building block Definition (Proof Ch 6) Evidence (bottom) A factual proposition about an event that will occur in the trial - phrase it as "[Witness] will say in court that . . . " or "[Exhibit] is shown and it shows . . . ", never as the underlying fact. Factual proposition (middle) An intermediate inferred fact about the world, devised by the advocate; each must be consistent with the theory. How chains relate 各条推理链如何相互关联 Relationship Para

• 证据要写成“未来庭审事件”：例如“X will say in court … / Exhibit shows …”，不要直接写成“事实本身”。[11]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf! Theory-stage errors that lose marks 理论阶段失分的错误 (1) Arguing the opposite of the set case. (2) Bare chronology with no analysis. (3) Mislabelling the case - adding 'intentionally' or 'murdered' when the set case is narrower (e. g. just 'the accused stabbed V') creates needless work. (4) A victim-centred theory in a perpetrator case - the how and why is about the perpetrator. (5) Putting why you believe it (the evidence) in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (1)论证与既定案件主张相反的内容。(2)干巴巴的时间顺序罗列而无任何分析。(3)给案件主张贴错标签 一 当既定案件 主张更为狭窄时(例如仅为‘被告刺伤了V'),却添加‘故意地’或‘谋杀’,徒增不必要的工作量。(4)在一个以加害人为中 心的案件中给出以被害人为中心的理论一其‘如何与为何’关乎的是加害人。(5)把你为何相信它(即证据)放进理论中 - 那属于证明部分。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . PROOF - STRAND 1 . PROOF Proving the theory: inference chains & the chart 证成理论:推理链(inference chains) 与图表 The [6. 140] relation; building blocks; conjunction vs convergence [6. 140]的关系;构成要件;合取(conjunction)与汇聚(convergence)之别 TL;DR. Part 2 turns the theory into a proof - a Wigmorean chart climbing from a courtroom event through inferred factual propositions to the case, every connecting line obeying the [6. 140] relation. Where chains meet, say whether they are conjunctive (all needed) or convergent (independent, cumulative). 一句话概要。第 2部分将理论转化为证明(proof)- 一张维格莫尔式(Wigmorean)图表(chart),从某一法庭事件(event) 出发,经由推断出的事实命题(factual propositions)攀升至案件主张(case),每一条连接线都须遵守[6. 140]的关系。在各 链相交之处,须说明它们究竟是合取式(conjunctive)(全部都需要)还是汇聚式(convergent)(彼此独立、累积叠加)。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 2: identify, with precision, the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony available in a future trial, arrange them with your own intermediate propositions into the [6. 140] relation, and classify chains as conjunctive or convergent. Pinpoint the exact part of the evidence relied on - never 'see the witness statement at large'. Chart-box words count toward the word limit. 第2 部分:精确指明在未来审判中可获得的书证/实物证据以及在世证人(living-witness)的证言,用你自己拟定的中 间命题将它们排入[6. 140]关系,并将各链归类为合取式或汇聚式。精确指出所依赖的证据的确切部分 一 绝不可写‘见 证人陈述全文’。图表框内的文字计入字数限制。 THE CORE INFERENCE RELATION . PROOF [6. 140] A connecting line in the chart means: "if the factual proposition at the BOTTOM of the connecting line is true then this makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that the proposition at the TOP of the connecting line is true. " Note: this is the SAME logic as legal (s 55) - the chart method IS the relevance test made concrete. < 相关性即推断的逻辑关系> The four building blocks 四项构成要件 Building block Definition (Proof Ch 6) Evidence (bottom) A factual proposition about an event that will occur in the trial - phrase it as "[Witness] will say in court that . . . " or "[Exhibit] is shown and it shows . . . ", never as the underlying fact. Factual proposition (middle) An intermediate inferred fact about the world, devised by the advocate; each must be consistent with the theory. How chains relate 各条推理链如何相互关联 Relationship Para
• 必须精确定位你用的是哪一句/哪一段证据，不要“见证人陈述全文”。[11]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf! Theory-stage errors that lose marks 理论阶段失分的错误 (1) Arguing the opposite of the set case. (2) Bare chronology with no analysis. (3) Mislabelling the case - adding 'intentionally' or 'murdered' when the set case is narrower (e. g. just 'the accused stabbed V') creates needless work. (4) A victim-centred theory in a perpetrator case - the how and why is about the perpetrator. (5) Putting why you believe it (the evidence) in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (1)论证与既定案件主张相反的内容。(2)干巴巴的时间顺序罗列而无任何分析。(3)给案件主张贴错标签 一 当既定案件 主张更为狭窄时(例如仅为‘被告刺伤了V'),却添加‘故意地’或‘谋杀’,徒增不必要的工作量。(4)在一个以加害人为中 心的案件中给出以被害人为中心的理论一其‘如何与为何’关乎的是加害人。(5)把你为何相信它(即证据)放进理论中 - 那属于证明部分。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . PROOF - STRAND 1 . PROOF Proving the theory: inference chains & the chart 证成理论:推理链(inference chains) 与图表 The [6. 140] relation; building blocks; conjunction vs convergence [6. 140]的关系;构成要件;合取(conjunction)与汇聚(convergence)之别 TL;DR. Part 2 turns the theory into a proof - a Wigmorean chart climbing from a courtroom event through inferred factual propositions to the case, every connecting line obeying the [6. 140] relation. Where chains meet, say whether they are conjunctive (all needed) or convergent (independent, cumulative). 一句话概要。第 2部分将理论转化为证明(proof)- 一张维格莫尔式(Wigmorean)图表(chart),从某一法庭事件(event) 出发,经由推断出的事实命题(factual propositions)攀升至案件主张(case),每一条连接线都须遵守[6. 140]的关系。在各 链相交之处,须说明它们究竟是合取式(conjunctive)(全部都需要)还是汇聚式(convergent)(彼此独立、累积叠加)。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 2: identify, with precision, the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony available in a future trial, arrange them with your own intermediate propositions into the [6. 140] relation, and classify chains as conjunctive or convergent. Pinpoint the exact part of the evidence relied on - never 'see the witness statement at large'. Chart-box words count toward the word limit. 第2 部分:精确指明在未来审判中可获得的书证/实物证据以及在世证人(living-witness)的证言,用你自己拟定的中 间命题将它们排入[6. 140]关系,并将各链归类为合取式或汇聚式。精确指出所依赖的证据的确切部分 一 绝不可写‘见 证人陈述全文’。图表框内的文字计入字数限制。 THE CORE INFERENCE RELATION . PROOF [6. 140] A connecting line in the chart means: "if the factual proposition at the BOTTOM of the connecting line is true then this makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that the proposition at the TOP of the connecting line is true. " Note: this is the SAME logic as legal (s 55) - the chart method IS the relevance test made concrete. < 相关性即推断的逻辑关系> The four building blocks 四项构成要件 Building block Definition (Proof Ch 6) Evidence (bottom) A factual proposition about an event that will occur in the trial - phrase it as "[Witness] will say in court that . . . " or "[Exhibit] is shown and it shows . . . ", never as the underlying fact. Factual proposition (middle) An intermediate inferred fact about the world, devised by the advocate; each must be consistent with the theory. How chains relate 各条推理链如何相互关联 Relationship Para
• 必须点名链与链的关系：
  • Convergent（汇聚）：彼此独立、累加增强。[6.210]
  • Conjunctive（合取）：缺一不可、最弱环决定强度。[6.220]
  • 材料明示：把合取/汇聚点名写出来就是得分点。[11]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf! Theory-stage errors that lose marks 理论阶段失分的错误 (1) Arguing the opposite of the set case. (2) Bare chronology with no analysis. (3) Mislabelling the case - adding 'intentionally' or 'murdered' when the set case is narrower (e. g. just 'the accused stabbed V') creates needless work. (4) A victim-centred theory in a perpetrator case - the how and why is about the perpetrator. (5) Putting why you believe it (the evidence) in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (1)论证与既定案件主张相反的内容。(2)干巴巴的时间顺序罗列而无任何分析。(3)给案件主张贴错标签 一 当既定案件 主张更为狭窄时(例如仅为‘被告刺伤了V'),却添加‘故意地’或‘谋杀’,徒增不必要的工作量。(4)在一个以加害人为中 心的案件中给出以被害人为中心的理论一其‘如何与为何’关乎的是加害人。(5)把你为何相信它(即证据)放进理论中 - 那属于证明部分。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . PROOF - STRAND 1 . PROOF Proving the theory: inference chains & the chart 证成理论:推理链(inference chains) 与图表 The [6. 140] relation; building blocks; conjunction vs convergence [6. 140]的关系;构成要件;合取(conjunction)与汇聚(convergence)之别 TL;DR. Part 2 turns the theory into a proof - a Wigmorean chart climbing from a courtroom event through inferred factual propositions to the case, every connecting line obeying the [6. 140] relation. Where chains meet, say whether they are conjunctive (all needed) or convergent (independent, cumulative). 一句话概要。第 2部分将理论转化为证明(proof)- 一张维格莫尔式(Wigmorean)图表(chart),从某一法庭事件(event) 出发,经由推断出的事实命题(factual propositions)攀升至案件主张(case),每一条连接线都须遵守[6. 140]的关系。在各 链相交之处,须说明它们究竟是合取式(conjunctive)(全部都需要)还是汇聚式(convergent)(彼此独立、累积叠加)。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 2: identify, with precision, the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony available in a future trial, arrange them with your own intermediate propositions into the [6. 140] relation, and classify chains as conjunctive or convergent. Pinpoint the exact part of the evidence relied on - never 'see the witness statement at large'. Chart-box words count toward the word limit. 第2 部分:精确指明在未来审判中可获得的书证/实物证据以及在世证人(living-witness)的证言,用你自己拟定的中 间命题将它们排入[6. 140]关系,并将各链归类为合取式或汇聚式。精确指出所依赖的证据的确切部分 一 绝不可写‘见 证人陈述全文’。图表框内的文字计入字数限制。 THE CORE INFERENCE RELATION . PROOF [6. 140] A connecting line in the chart means: "if the factual proposition at the BOTTOM of the connecting line is true then this makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that the proposition at the TOP of the connecting line is true. " Note: this is the SAME logic as legal (s 55) - the chart method IS the relevance test made concrete. < 相关性即推断的逻辑关系> The four building blocks 四项构成要件 Building block Definition (Proof Ch 6) Evidence (bottom) A factual proposition about an event that will occur in the trial - phrase it as "[Witness] will say in court that . . . " or "[Exhibit] is shown and it shows . . . ", never as the underlying fact. Factual proposition (middle) An intermediate inferred fact about the world, devised by the advocate; each must be consistent with the theory. How chains relate 各条推理链如何相互关联 Relationship Para

6）开卷应试：你现在最该做的“打印导航包”（比做笔记更值）

• (1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) 条文节选（贴标签：55–56、59、76、81、97–101、135–138 等）[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[30]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdfany prosecution item 19 · Section Index EVIDENCE ACT 2008 (VIC) § EFFECT 55-56 relevance gateway hearsay rule (intended to assert) non-hearsay purpose (not admissions, s60(3)) 62 . 65 . 66 . 66A first-hand: limit · unavailable · available . own state of mind 67. 69 notice · business records opinion . lay . expert+basis . ultimate-issue gone 81-90 admissions: s84 violence . s85 reliability . s89 silence · s90 fairness 97 - 98 - 101 tendency . coincidence . pros. "substantially outweighs" (Vic) 101A-108C . 110-112 credibility (rule + exceptions) · character (leave)
• (2) 可采性 flowchart + rules/discretions 对照表（直接按 Step 0–6 排版）[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses
• (3) 每条规则一个“leading case 一行标签”（材料点名如 Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross）[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法
• (4) IMM “at its highest” 证明价值笔记（因为它会贯穿 PV 的所有地方）[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[13]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf§ § The IMM probative-value trap (get it exactly right) § IMM 证明价值陷阱(务必准确把握) IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14. When assessing probative value (ss 97/98/101/135/137), take the evidence "at its highest" - assume it is accepted; do NOT discount for reliability/credibility. @ The tension: the majority's own "foggy night" example let visibility cap how high an identification could reach. Exam move: never call it reliability/credibility; but if a factor - like the foggy night - means the evidence's highest point is itself low, note it by analogy to IMM. Here the shoeprint's 5% figure is such a factor: its "highest" is modest alone, but powerful in conjunction with motive + the false denial. IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14。在评估证明价值(ss 97/98/101/135/137) 时,取证据“其最高值” -- 假定其被 接受;不得因可靠性/可信性打折扣。■ 张力所在:多数意见自己的“有雾之夜”例子让能见度限定了一项辨认所能达到 的高度。考试动作:切勿称其为可靠性/可信性;但若某因素 -- 如有雾之夜 -- 意味着该证据的最高点本身就低,则 按类比于 IMM加以指出。本案中鞋印的5% 数据正是这样一个因素:其“最高值”单独看尚属适中,但与动机+虚假否 认合取则威力强大。 F1 FACT ANALYSIS . INFERENCE CHAIN the 30% task skill Using the same R v Calder brief, build the proof for the set case "Dana Calder stabbed Sam Reyes". state the main arguments and, for one chain, the bottom-up [6. 140] links; then say whether the chains are conjunctive or convergent. (Fact analysis only - no law of evidence here. ) 运用同一份 R v Calder 卷宗,针对既定案件主张“Dana Calder 刺杀了 Sam Reyes"构建证明(proof):陈述各主要论 点,并就其中一条链给出自下而上的[6. 140]各环节联系;然后说明这些链究竟是合取式(conjunctive)还是汇聚式 (convergent)。(仅作事实分析 一此处不涉及证据法。) MODEL ANSWER - PROOF Main arguments (penultimate propositions, [6. 40]): (1) Calder had a strong, recently-inflamed motive; (2) a violent confrontation occurred in the workshop at the relevant time; (3) a person wearing Calder-type shoes was at the bloody scene; (4) Calder's false denial shows consciousness of guilt. Avoid the lazy "means/motive/opportunity" skeleton - it proves little here. 主要论点(次终极命题,[6. 40]):(1) Calder 具有一个强烈且近期被激化的动机;(2)在相关时间,工坊内发生了一场暴力对 峙;(3)一名穿着 Calder 同类鞋者曾出现在血腥现场;(4) Calder 的虚假否认表明罪责意识。避免“手段/动机/机会”这一 偷懒框架 -- 它在此证明不了多少。 2 One chain, bottom-up [6. 140] (each rung a separate proposition; phrase evidence as a courtroom event): "Priya will say in court Calder said 'I could kill him"" - Calder voiced lethal anger at Sam - Calder had a motive to harm Sam - (converges with the text in (b)) - main argument (1). 一条链,自下而上[6. 140](每一阶梯都是一个独立命题;把证据表述为一个法庭事件):“Priya 将在庭上陈述 Calder 说过 ‘我真想杀了他’”→ Calder 道出了对 Sam 的杀意之怒→ Calder 具有伤害 Sam 的动机→(与(b)中的短信汇聚)→主要论点 (1). 1 3 Name the relationship. The four main arguments are convergent [6. 210] on "Calder was the attacker" - each independently raises the probability. The high-value move is to add that motive x shoeprint x false- denial in conjunction [6. 220] make it far more likely than any alone - the Aytugrul "DNA x obsession" lesson. 指明这种关系。四个主要论点汇聚[6. 210]于“Calder 即攻击者” -- 每一个都独立地提高其可能性。高分动作是补充:动机 × 鞋印 × 虚假否认在合取 [6. 220] 下使其可能性远高于任何单独一项 -- 这正是 Aytugrul"DNA x 痴迷”所给出的教训。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! Inference-chain traps (straight from the feedback) 推理链(inference chain)陷阱(直接源自评分反馈) (1) Listing # proving - you must reason from each item, not catalogue it. (2) Don't stray into why you believe it in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (3) Pinpoint the exact evidence (the 5% figure, not "see the report"). (4) Word- limit: words inside chart boxes count toward the limit. (5) Name conjunction vs convergence explicitly - it is where the marks are. (1)罗列≠证明 -- 你必须从每一项展开推理,而非将其编目。(2)不要在“理论”部分跑去谈你为何相信它 -- 那属于“证 明”部分。(3)精确定位到确切的证据(要写“那个5% 的数据”,而非“见报告”)。(4)字数限制:图表方框内的文字计入 限制。(5)明确指明属合取还是汇聚 -- 那正是分数所在。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual PRACTICE . ISSUE -SPOTS + RECALL ISSUE - SPOTTING DRILLS + RECALL Short-answer drills & the open-book checklist 简答题演练与开卷核查清单 Three rapid issue-spots with model answers, then a where-to-look checklist 三处快速争点识别(issue-spot)附范例答案,随后是一份查阅指引清单 spot the clean pathway S1 SHORT ANSWER . HEARSAY / ADMISSIONS (AskSia facts - R v Mercer. ) The prosecution wants to tender a letter the accused, Mercer, wrote to his brother saying "I had to do it, I couldn't let her talk. " Defence counsel argues it is inadmissible hearsay. Which exception is the clean route, and why is reaching for s 60 or s 65 an error?

7）你照做就能提分的“最后冲刺顺序”（给你一个非常具体的刷题法）

• 选任意一道练习 brief（或你课上材料），每一项证据都强制写 6 句：
  • ① item + purpose
  • ② s 55/56 relevance（1句）
  • ③ 被哪条 rule 抓到（可多个）
  • ④ 哪个 exception 把它拉回来（若需要）
  • ⑤ s 135/137/138/136/90 是否会卡（至少点名 + 1句 why）
  • ⑥ 结论：admitted? for what use?
• 目标：顺序不乱 + 每段都先写 use。[10]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfONE item, ONE purpose at a time - admissibility is use-relative. \ Ladder: relevance (ss 55-56) - rule - exception - discretions (ss 135-138). Y Rules are cumulative, not alternatives. Y s 137 is mandatory in crime. Advice = theory -> proof -+ impact; the 70% exam is the impact part. Y Always end each item: admitted? and for what use? Y It is a future trial, not a review of the past one. √一次一项证据、一种用途 一可采性与用途相关。√阶梯:相关性(ss 55-56)→规则→例外→ 裁量权(ss 135-138)。√ 各规则是累积性的,而非互斥选项。√s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。√ 意见书=理论→证明→影响; 70% 的考试是影响那一部分。√每一项都要以此收尾:是否采纳?用作何种用途?√ 这是一场未来的审判,而非对过去 那场审判的复审。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual STRAND 1 . THEORY - STRAND 1 . FACT ANALYSIS FACT ANALYSIS TASK . 30% Case theory: choosing the factual theory 案件理论:选定事实理论(factual theory) The nine criteria the 30% task is marked against (Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) 占30%的作业据以评分的九项标准(Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170]) TL;DR. Fact analysis answers two questions before any law: (1) what must we prove? (the case) and (2) how do we prove it? (the proof). The case <1+3}> is the single legally-significant proposition; the theory «###it> is the story that makes it true. You pick the theory that best satisfies the nine Proof [5. 70] criteria. 一句话概要。事实分析在涉及任何法律之前先回答两个问题:(1)我们必须证明什么?(案件主张(case))与(2)我们如何证 明?(证明(proof))。案件主张《案件主张》是单一的具有法律意义的命题;事实理论(theory)<事实理论》则是使其成立的故 事叙述。你应选取最能满足Proof[5. 70]九项标准的理论。 ★ What the task asks here 此处作业考什么 Part 1 of the advice: state a factual theory that best satisfies the [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria - without applying the law of evidence. Markers reward a single, plausible, comprehensive, internally-consistent narrative that follows the set case exactly and tells the how and why, not a bare chronology of events. 意见书第1部分:陈述一个最能满足[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标准的事实理论 一而不适用证据法。评分者奖励一个单一的、可 信的、全面的、内部一致的叙事,它严格遵循既定案件主张并讲清如何与为何,而非对各事件的干巴巴的时间顺序罗 列。 CASE VS THEORY . PROOF [5. 30] CASE << 待证命题>="a single factual proposition . . . to the effect that an event with legal consequences has occurred. " The destination. THEORY <A>> = "a narrative or story . . . an explanation for all the evidence. " The route. # Criterion ([5. 70]-[5. 170]) What it demands of the theory 1 Consistency with instructions The theory must serve the set case you were instructed to advise on - no more, no less. Arguing the opposite of the set case is a fatal error. 2 Minimalism Assume as little as possible; do not multiply contested propositions. 3 Simplicity The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence. 4 Legal significance The theory must support a proposition carrying the required legal consequence. 5 Consistency Internally coherent; no self-contradiction. 6 Plausibility Believable against ordinary human experience and the brief. 7 Clarity Communicable to a third party (even a non-lawyer). 8 Comprehensiveness The heavily-marked one. Take a clear position on all the evidence - especially the ambiguous or complicating facts. Reaching 'no conclusion' on a contested event is the cardinal error. 9 Flexibility Able to absorb new evidence without collapsing. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay

• 每题至少强行写一次：IMM at its highest（出现在 PV 的地方就写）。[13]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf§ § The IMM probative-value trap (get it exactly right) § IMM 证明价值陷阱(务必准确把握) IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14. When assessing probative value (ss 97/98/101/135/137), take the evidence "at its highest" - assume it is accepted; do NOT discount for reliability/credibility. @ The tension: the majority's own "foggy night" example let visibility cap how high an identification could reach. Exam move: never call it reliability/credibility; but if a factor - like the foggy night - means the evidence's highest point is itself low, note it by analogy to IMM. Here the shoeprint's 5% figure is such a factor: its "highest" is modest alone, but powerful in conjunction with motive + the false denial. IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14。在评估证明价值(ss 97/98/101/135/137) 时,取证据“其最高值” -- 假定其被 接受;不得因可靠性/可信性打折扣。■ 张力所在:多数意见自己的“有雾之夜”例子让能见度限定了一项辨认所能达到 的高度。考试动作:切勿称其为可靠性/可信性;但若某因素 -- 如有雾之夜 -- 意味着该证据的最高点本身就低,则 按类比于 IMM加以指出。本案中鞋印的5% 数据正是这样一个因素:其“最高值”单独看尚属适中,但与动机+虚假否 认合取则威力强大。 F1 FACT ANALYSIS . INFERENCE CHAIN the 30% task skill Using the same R v Calder brief, build the proof for the set case "Dana Calder stabbed Sam Reyes". state the main arguments and, for one chain, the bottom-up [6. 140] links; then say whether the chains are conjunctive or convergent. (Fact analysis only - no law of evidence here. ) 运用同一份 R v Calder 卷宗,针对既定案件主张“Dana Calder 刺杀了 Sam Reyes"构建证明(proof):陈述各主要论 点,并就其中一条链给出自下而上的[6. 140]各环节联系;然后说明这些链究竟是合取式(conjunctive)还是汇聚式 (convergent)。(仅作事实分析 一此处不涉及证据法。) MODEL ANSWER - PROOF Main arguments (penultimate propositions, [6. 40]): (1) Calder had a strong, recently-inflamed motive; (2) a violent confrontation occurred in the workshop at the relevant time; (3) a person wearing Calder-type shoes was at the bloody scene; (4) Calder's false denial shows consciousness of guilt. Avoid the lazy "means/motive/opportunity" skeleton - it proves little here. 主要论点(次终极命题,[6. 40]):(1) Calder 具有一个强烈且近期被激化的动机;(2)在相关时间,工坊内发生了一场暴力对 峙;(3)一名穿着 Calder 同类鞋者曾出现在血腥现场;(4) Calder 的虚假否认表明罪责意识。避免“手段/动机/机会”这一 偷懒框架 -- 它在此证明不了多少。 2 One chain, bottom-up [6. 140] (each rung a separate proposition; phrase evidence as a courtroom event): "Priya will say in court Calder said 'I could kill him"" - Calder voiced lethal anger at Sam - Calder had a motive to harm Sam - (converges with the text in (b)) - main argument (1). 一条链,自下而上[6. 140](每一阶梯都是一个独立命题;把证据表述为一个法庭事件):“Priya 将在庭上陈述 Calder 说过 ‘我真想杀了他’”→ Calder 道出了对 Sam 的杀意之怒→ Calder 具有伤害 Sam 的动机→(与(b)中的短信汇聚)→主要论点 (1). 1 3 Name the relationship. The four main arguments are convergent [6. 210] on "Calder was the attacker" - each independently raises the probability. The high-value move is to add that motive x shoeprint x false- denial in conjunction [6. 220] make it far more likely than any alone - the Aytugrul "DNA x obsession" lesson. 指明这种关系。四个主要论点汇聚[6. 210]于“Calder 即攻击者” -- 每一个都独立地提高其可能性。高分动作是补充:动机 × 鞋印 × 虚假否认在合取 [6. 220] 下使其可能性远高于任何单独一项 -- 这正是 Aytugrul"DNA x 痴迷”所给出的教训。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! Inference-chain traps (straight from the feedback) 推理链(inference chain)陷阱(直接源自评分反馈) (1) Listing # proving - you must reason from each item, not catalogue it. (2) Don't stray into why you believe it in the theory - that belongs in the proof. (3) Pinpoint the exact evidence (the 5% figure, not "see the report"). (4) Word- limit: words inside chart boxes count toward the limit. (5) Name conjunction vs convergence explicitly - it is where the marks are. (1)罗列≠证明 -- 你必须从每一项展开推理,而非将其编目。(2)不要在“理论”部分跑去谈你为何相信它 -- 那属于“证 明”部分。(3)精确定位到确切的证据(要写“那个5% 的数据”,而非“见报告”)。(4)字数限制:图表方框内的文字计入 限制。(5)明确指明属合取还是汇聚 -- 那正是分数所在。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual PRACTICE . ISSUE -SPOTS + RECALL ISSUE - SPOTTING DRILLS + RECALL Short-answer drills & the open-book checklist 简答题演练与开卷核查清单 Three rapid issue-spots with model answers, then a where-to-look checklist 三处快速争点识别(issue-spot)附范例答案,随后是一份查阅指引清单 spot the clean pathway S1 SHORT ANSWER . HEARSAY / ADMISSIONS (AskSia facts - R v Mercer. ) The prosecution wants to tender a letter the accused, Mercer, wrote to his brother saying "I had to do it, I couldn't let her talk. " Defence counsel argues it is inadmissible hearsay. Which exception is the clean route, and why is reaching for s 60 or s 65 an error?
• 刑事检方证据一定问自己：s 137（MUST）有没有杀死它？[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法
• 有“非法/不当取得”影子就写：s 138 + onus + factors。[6]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfProvision Effect s 135 General discretion (all proceedings). Court may refuse if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice / misleading / undue waste of time / (Vic s 135(d)) demeaning the deceased. s 136 Court may limit the use of evidence (e. g. admit for one purpose only) where a use risks unfair prejudice or confusion. s 137 MANDATORY (criminal, prosecution evidence). Court MUST refuse if probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Note the asymmetry vs s 135: must not may, outweighed not substantially outweighed. s 138 Improperly / illegally obtained evidence is not admitted unless the desirability of admitting outweighs the undesirability - weigh the eight s 138(3) factors. Onus on the party seeking admission. s 90 Discretion to exclude a prosecution admission where its use would be 'unfair to the accused' - the admissions safety-net. AskSia Library . LAWS50037 . XXia Bilingual METHOD . THE ADVICE - METHOD . THE ADVICE The structure of an 'advice on evidence' “证据分析意见书”(advice on evidence)的结构 Three parts - theory, proof, impact - and how the two assessments split them 三部分 一 理论、证明、影响 一以及两项考核如何分摊它们 TL;DR. Both assessments are parts of one artefact: a written advice on evidence on a fresh brief. Parts 1-2 (theory + proof) are the Fact Analysis Task (30%); Part 3 (the admissibility analysis) is the Final Exam (70%). The proof in Part 2 feeds the law in Part 3 - a sloppy proof guarantees a sloppy law answer. 一句话概要。两项考核都是同一份成果物的组成部分:就一份全新卷宗撰写的证据分析意见书(advice on evidence)。第 1- 2 部分(理论+证明)即事实分析任务(30%);第3部分(可采性分析)即期末考试(70%)。第2部分的证明为第3部 分的法律分析输送素材 一 草率的证明必然导致草率的法律答案。 1 Part 1 - the factual theory of the case. One coherent narrative of what happened, selected to best satisfy the Proof [5. 70]-[5. 170] criteria. Done without the law of evidence. (Strand 1 / the 30% Fact Analysis Task. ) 第一部分 -- 案件的事实理论。一个关于事情如何发生的连贯叙事,经挑选以最大限度地满足《Proof》[5. 70]-[5. 170] 标 准。在不援引证据法的情况下完成。(第一脉络/占30% 的事实分析任务。) 2 Part 2 - the proof (inference chains). Identify the documentary/real evidence and living-witness testimony, then arrange them with intermediate propositions into the Proof [6. 140] relation, classifying chains as conjunctive [6. 220] or convergent [6. 210]. Still without the law of evidence. (Strand 1. ) 第二部分 -- 证明(推理链)。识别书证/实物证据与在世证人的证言,然后将它们连同中间命题排列进《Proof》[6. 140]的 关系之中,并把各推理链归类为合取型[6. 220]或汇聚型[6. 210]。仍不援引证据法。(第一脉络。) 3 Part 3 - the impact of the law of evidence. Run each significant chain through the admissibility flowchart; state how and why each rule does/doesn't bite, and flag judicial-discretion and factual contingencies. (Strand 2 / the 70% exam - "roughly half the marks". ) 第三部分 -- 证据法的影响。将每一条重要推理链运行通过可采性流程图;说明每条规则如何及为何适用或不适用,并标注司 法裁量与事实上的不确定因素。(第二脉络/占70% 的考试 -- “约占总分的一半”。) "Precisely stating what rational uses are to be made of the evidence is absolutely crucial to correctly applying the rules. " “精确说明拟对证据作出何种合理用途,对于正确适用各项规则而言绝对至关重要。” MARKER FEEDBACK - THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PART 2 AND PART 3 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ✓ Build the open-book tab-indexed kit 构建带标签索引的开卷工具包(tab-indexed kit) The exam is open-book and digitally locked-down (Cadmus + LockDown Browser), so only printed/written material may be brought - the skill is to know where to look, not to memorise. Bring a tabbed kit: (1) the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) extract; (2) this admissibility flowchart + the rules/discretions grids; (3) a one-line leading-case tag per rule (Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross); (4) the IMM probative-value note. Confirm permitted materials on your official cover sheet. 考试为开卷且处于数字锁定环境(Cadmus + LockDown Browser),故只有印刷/书写材料可被带入 一所需要技能是知道 该往何处查,而非死记。请带上一份带标签的资料包:(1) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)节选本;(2)这张可采性流程图外 加各规则/裁量权表格;(3)每条规则一行的权威判例标签(Smith / Lee / Dasreef / Honeysett / Hughes / IMM / Bunning v Cross);(4)那份 IMM 证明价值笔记。请在你的官方封面页上核实许可携带的材料。 ★ Recall checklist - the method 记忆核查清单 一 方法[29]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf14b . s138 - PUBLIC-POLICY Improperly Obtained BALANCE S138 evidence obtained improperly / illegally is NOT admitted UNLESS the desirability of admitting it outweighs the undesirability . Onus on the party seeking admission. s138(3) - 8 factors: (a) PV; (b) importance; (c) nature of offence; (d) gravity; (e) deliberate/reckless ?; (f) ICCPR breach ?; (g) other proceedings; (h) difficulty of getting it lawfully. BUNNING V CROSS (1978) 141 CLR 54 The common-law public-policy discretion s138 codifies - balance convicting the guilty against not condoning unlawful policing. Lawfulness: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss458-465. 15 · Privilege PT3. 10 . SS117-139A TYPE + RULE - EXCEPTION + 5 CLIENT LEGAL PRIVILEGE (= LPP) · s118 - advice privilege: a confidential lawyer- client (or lawyer-lawyer) communication/document made for the dominant purpose of legal advice ESSO AUSTRALIA RESOURCES V FCT (1999) 201 CLR 49 The UEL adopts the dominant-purpose test (not the older "sole purpose"). SELF-INCRIMINATION s128 - a witness may object to giving self- incriminating evidence; the court may issue a certificate (s128(7)) = a use immunity. Distinct from the accused's s89 silence right. s120 unrepresented parties · s123 exception for an accused . s126 related comms. Privilege is the client's - only the client may object/waive. 16 . Burden & Standard § STANDARD s140 civil - balance of probabilities (gravity factors; Briginshaw codified, s140(2) s141 |criminal - prosecution beyond reasonable doubt (s141(1)); accused on the balance (s141(2)) s142 admissibility / voir-dire facts decided on the balance of probabilities - even in a criminal trial

• 不写 use、规则当互斥、忘裁量、写成复盘旧案。[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay

8）我需要你给我3个信息，我就能把复习重点“继续细化到你个人版模板”

• 你的 Final 是哪天（具体日期）？
• 你最怕的 3 块是哪三块：Hearsay / Opinion / Tendency-Coincidence / Admissions / Discretions(s137/s138) / Privilege-Warnings？[5]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdfMethod - the two strands - the open-book reference tables - practice 方法→ 两条主线 → 开卷参考表 → 练习 Ch Topic Core idea Method . The two skills, as one workflow M The method admissibility flowchart · advice-on-evidence structure → Strand 1 . Fact analysis (the 30% task) 1 Fact analysis case vs theory . the [5. 70] criteria . inference chains . the advice → Strand 2 . The law of evidence (the 70% exam) 2 Relevance & examining witnesses ss 55-56 . Smith . Browne v Dunn → 3 Hearsay & its exceptions ss 59-75 · Lee · s 65/66/66A → 4 Opinion evidence ss 76-80 . Dasreef . Honeysett - 5 Tendency, coincidence & credibility ss 94-108 . Hughes . s 101A tree → 6 Character & post-offence conduct ss 89, 110-112 . JDA ss 18-24, 41-42 → 7 Admissions & confessions ss 81-90 . voluntariness . reliability . fairness → 8 Discretionary & mandatory exclusions ss 135-138 . IMM . Bunning v Cross →[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay
• 你更需要：我给你“可直接套用的段落模板”，还是你写一段我按评分者标准帮你改到满分？[12]Source: asksia-bible-laws50037-bilingual.pdf★ What the exam asks here 考试在此处考什么 The 70% final is Part 3 of an 'advice on evidence': for each significant chain in the proof, apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and explain how AND why each rule does or doesn't affect admissibility, flagging discretionary and factual contingencies. You are NOT asked to cite the sources of the law - just apply it. Roughly half of all subject marks live here, so depth on the few genuinely contentious issues beats a shallow spray of every rule. 70% 的期末是一份‘证据分析意见书’的第3部分:对证明中的每一条重要链,适用 Evidence Act 2008(Vic)并解释每 条规则如何及为何影响或不影响可采性,标注出裁量性与事实性的或然情形。无须援引法律的渊源 一 只须加以适用。全 科分数中约有一半都在此处,因此在少数几个确有争议的问题上的深度,胜过对每一条规则的浅层泛泛而谈。 THE ADMISSIBILITY FLOWCHART STEP 0 - ITEM & PURPOSE. Take ONE item of evidence, fix the ONE rational use you want it for (from your proof). Re-run every step per item, per purpose. STEP 1 - RELEVANT? s 55 could it rationally affect a fact in issue? If no - s 56(2) inadmissible, stop. STEP 2 - ADMISSIBLE in principle. s 56(1) relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS a rule excludes it. STEP 3 - EXCLUSIONARY RULE? hearsay s 59 . opinion s 76 . tendency s 97 / coincidence s 98 . credibility s 102 . character s 110. If none bites - jump to Step 5. STEP 4 - EXCEPTION? hearsay ss 60-75 . opinion ss 77-79 . admissions s 81 . T&C significant probative value ss 97/98 + prosecution s 101 . credibility ss 103-108C. STEP 5 - DISCRETIONS. s 135 (may, all proceedings) . s 136 (limit use) . s 137 (MUST exclude prosecution evidence in crime) . s 138 (improperly/illegally obtained) . s 90 (unfair admission). STEP 6 - ADMITTED, and FOR WHAT USE? state the use(s) the evidence may serve, and any judicial direction (Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)). AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual ! The four method-killers 四个方法致命错误(method-killers) (1) Skipping the use. Admissibility is purpose-relative - the same item can be hearsay for one use and fine for another; never analyse an item without first stating its rational use. (2) Treating rules as alternatives. Hearsay, opinion and tendency are cumulative - a previous representation about a tendency must clear both s 59 and s 97 (and maybe s 76). (3) Forgetting the discretions. Passing an exception is not the end - ss 135-138 still bite, and s 137 is mandatory in crime. (4) Reviewing the past trial instead of advising on a future trial. (1)跳过用途。可采性是与用途相关的 一同一项证据可能就一种用途而言属传闻,就另一种用途而言却无碍;切勿在未 先陈述其理性用途之前就分析某项证据。(2)把各规则当作互斥的选项。传闻、意见与倾向是累积性的 一一项关于某种 倾向的先前陈述必须同时越过 s 59 和 s 97(也许还有s 76)。(3)忘记各项裁量权。通过了某一例外并非终点- ss 135-138 仍会命中,且 s 137 在刑事中是强制性的。(4)去复审过去的审判,而非就未来的审判提供意见。 AskSia Library · LAWS50037 · 双语 Bilingual METHOD . RULES MAP METHOD . THE RULES MAP Step 3-5: the rule, then the exception, then the discretion 第3-5步:先规则,再例外,最后裁量权(discretion) The exclusionary grid + the discretionary backstop - your open-book index 排除规则一览表+裁量权这道兜底防线 一你的开卷索引 TL;DR. Step 3 screens the item through the five exclusionary rules; if one bites, Step 4 hunts the matching exception; Step 5 always re-checks the discretions. The two grids below are the navigator - tab them in your printed kit so the open-book exam is a lookup, not a memory test. 一句话概要。第3步用五条排除规则筛查该项证据;若有一条命中,第4步即搜寻相匹配的例外;第 5 步则始终重新核查各 项裁量权。下面两张表格即是导航器一 在你打印的资料包中给它们贴上标签,使开卷考试成为一次查阅,而非记忆测试。 - 3-4 The exclusionary rules & their exits 3-4排除规则及其出口 Exclusionary rule Section What it catches Lead exception(s) Hearsay[16]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-laws50037.pdf* Split assessment: Fact Analysis Task ~30% (~1500 wds; factual theory + inference chains - no law applied) + Final Exam ~70% (3 h, exam period; the admissibility analysis). 75% seminar attendance hurdle. The exam IS open-book - bring printed/written material; the skill is knowing where to look. 2026 = supervised digital exam in Cadmus + LockDown Browser (blocks apps, URLs, copy-paste) -> only printed/written matter is usable. This sheet = your "where to look" navigator. SIA > Markers reward how AND why each rule does/doesn't bite on the precise rational use - not a shallow spray of every section. 1 . The Admissibility Flowchart THE SPINE Run every chain of the proof through four stages, tied to the use you identified: THE FOUR GATES 1 RELEVANT? s55-56 - if no, OUT 2 RULE? caught by s59 / s76 / s97-98 / s102 / admission? 3 EXCEPTION? s60, ss62-69, s78/79, s81, sig. PV 4 DISCRETION? s135 . s137(must) · s138 . s136 . s90 Rules are cumulative, not alternatives - a previous representation about a tendency must pass both hearsay and tendency (and maybe opinion). Treating tendency as a hearsay exception is an error. 2 . Relevance - the Gateway SS55-56 . CH4 S55 TEST relevant if, if accepted, it could rationally affect (directly/indirectly) the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Minimal threshold - "could," not "does. " s55(2): not irrelevant merely because it goes only to credibility / to admissibility of other evidence / to a failure to adduce. s56 - relevant = admissible unless excluded by another provision; irrelevant = not admissible. (s57 provisional relevance; s58 inferences. ) SMITH V THE QUEEN (2001) 206 CLR 650 Irrelevant where the tribunal is in no better position than the jury to draw the inference (police "recognising" the accused in a photo the jury could compare). PAPAKOSMAS V THE QUEEN (1999) 196 CLR 297 Relevance is judged by the use the evidence is put to; the Act's scheme governs, not common-law instinct. 3 · Examination of Witnesses