How many past exams do you recommend us practicing in order to prepare for the exam? Given the vast volume of the evidence and the great amount of time needed, do you have any recommendations on how we may get the most use of these papers without spending the full amount of time?

Thank you!!

by an objective way, I mean, try to glean what truly happened and only note down what is "the truth".

by a subjective way, I mean, just note down whatever witness has said in their accounts (but then I assume there would be overlap, repetition and inconsistencies between different witnesses and also potential inaccuracies?).

Thanks!!

My question is about part 1 of the exam. Sometimes for me, the hardest part of writing an essay is getting started!

So, with that in mind, I am just wondering if you could give an example of what part 1 is supposed to sound like.

I.e, is it written like an opening speech in court, using phrases like 'the prosecution contends that x y z happened', or more like a story where you just say 'on the 11th of March 2025, X was found in a park....

I hope my question makes sense!

Thank you

2. Does s 110 only apply if the accused themselves adduces the evidence or is it just if the defence generally adduces the evidence?

Thank you so much for all your help with the STS videos this semester - such a gem!

I just had a question about the Uniform Evidence Text. It's been noted in our exam instructions to consider Victorian law as set out in that text, but full transparency I have not been on top of those readings. How much will I be disadvantaged if I've been attending classes and have a relative understanding of the legislation but haven't been doing the Uniform Evidence readings (just the Proof ones).

The stress is slowly creeping up on me...

Thanks!

I am trying to wrap my head around tendency evidence. In the Levi Weeks exam for example would it be fair as prosecution to use a tendency argument against Levi to say that he had a strong tendency to pay attention to Elma which misled her to believe he was going to marry her and when he denied he ever suggested that an altercation broke out and he ended up killing her? I mean its a long shot but it is probable, what do you think? Thanks so much for clarifying!!

Thank you so much for your STS videos, they have been so helpful!

Would you mind explaining what a 'co-premise' is and when to use it for the mapping?

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your videos! I was just wondering if there was an approximate word count you allocated for each section.

Just wanted to ask you how you did a word count for your charts? I'm trying to figure this out on Canva via the whiteboard but it's proving impossible. Did you resort to counting the words yourself? If you have a tip it would be so greatly appreciated!!

Thank you for everything!

I just had a quick question about s137, in which the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Considering we are the prosecution, doesn't that technically mean that all evidence we are trying to get in could have an unfair prejudice to the accused?

Im trying to wrap my head around how this exception would work in practice with all our evidence. Especially given there is no requirement of substantial or significant (and the probative value must simply outweigh) I would imagine that means it applies to all evidence, and therefore most evidence would fall within this? Sorry Im probably explaining this wrong, but would love a bit of a breakdown in how this would come into play in the exam, and what types of evidence would be affected by this provision.

Thank youuuuu

For admission, is question 1 of the hypo structure basically s88? or would we need to mention that at another point in the structure?

Your STS videos have been a lifesaver!!

I was wondering how much information i should be putting into my maps. I've done a practice and it seems quite informative (because i want to ensure i have all my basis covered) but it is as simple as saying that 'Yusuf has the access to the apartment' then the next proposition saying 'he used the bins' or something along that?

Additionally, under the maps for pt 2, once you provide the map in your document - what are you supposed to say under it? do you go into further depth into explaining it and if so, how do you do that without repeating yourself or adding rules of evidence. Or do you keep your map brief then go into further explanation under it?

For the map, when we are inputting evidence, are we supposed to say anything about the evidence rules like "Witnesses would testify to the character of Yusuf" or "Witnesses heard Yusuf say XXX which is hearsay" or do we keep it as simple as "Witnesses would testify that they heard Yusuf say XXX"?

Are we also supposed to use definitive language in the map? I feel like it's a trap to do so, because if its wrong youre stuck with it. (E.g. for Levi Weeks case - Proposition: "Levi was unaccounted for at the time of Elma’s disappearance, between 8pm and 10pm". Then under it, as another proposition: "Levi claimed he was at his brothers house for the entire evening". For the second proposition is it better to say Levi was at his brothers house for the whole night, then use evidence rebut this?

Thank you.

Also obviously you dont need to know the Weeks case, its just the example i'm doing

Do you have a recommended structure for part 1 and 3?

For part 1, you would write it in a chronological order, with the addition of filling in the gaps and dramatic and creative inference? and how would you stop yourself from repeating if there are many overlapping parts of the factual theory.

And for Part 3, I've heard really conflicting recommendations. Would you recommend doing it by each bit of evidence - E.g. if its a statement, determining relevance, hearsay, opinion, admission, tendency etc etc. And if we do this how do we determine whats evidence is actually relevant and what isnt (after all if the obvious ones are written about). Or would you recommend writing under subheadings of hearsay, opinion, admissions etc etc.

Thanks

Thank you for your STS videos - they have been super helpful.

I was wondering if you were able to clarify the difference between ss101 and 137, and when you would each one/or any instances where you would choose one over the other.

THANKS

Will this padlet be open during the exam?

Thanks!

Sorry to add another question to the pile, but I was wondering if you would very quickly be able to help with a hearsay question I've been hanging on to. It's to do with the actual subject of a hearsay analysis, and it popped into my head largely because of this line in the 2023 exam feedback:

But of more importance is that Sands’s words are in turn evidence of things Weeks said and, hence, about Weeks himself. Establishing Weeks’s words likewise depends on salifying s65(2)(c), but uses of his words will still be barred by the hearsay rule if they are used to prove a fact that Weeks could be reasonably supposed to have intended to assert.

For context, this is in a situation where Person A (an available witness) heard from Person B (the deceased) what Person C (the accused) said. The next paragraph then outlines exceptions that might apply to Weeks's words, depending on how they're used. In situations like this, I'm a bit uncertain about what to do. The feedback treats Weeks's words as the subject of the analysis even though they are first established in the witness's testimony about what the deceased said to them. In this case, would we, in our analysis in Part 3, first establish that the the witness's testimony is admissible/potentially admissible, then move on to a discussion of Weeks' words? 

Thanks very much.

thank you so much for all the help throughout the semester it has been amazing!! I just wa hoping to get some clarity what text we should include in part 2 of our exam if we are using maps. Do we have to have a paragraph under each map (if so what should it detail) or is it sufficient to just insert the maps we make for part 2?

Thank you so much for making these STS videos!

I just got a question on the credibility rule you mentioned in the 2024 exam revision video.

the way I understand it is that you would approach this in a way that let the prosecution to cross-examine Uluc(the centrelink contact)'s credibility.

my question was: could we as prosecution challenge our own witness's credibility?

Thx!!!!

Do you still remember while you were doing the exam (a) were you able to submit it in PDF form? and (b) if not, what was the recommended approach to incorporate part II proof into the word document (without messing up the format)?

Thanks so much!

If we have a witness that could not come to court because of illness and/or old age (e.g. Elizabeth Watkins in the 2023 exam) and their statement had to be read out in court, how do we deal with this situation? does it then trigger the hearsay rule, or is there any special procedure for their statement to get in as if they were testifying in court?

Thanks a lot!!

For the rules of evidence, you mentioned in your final STS video an example of direct evidence 'suzanne witnessed sevda embrace a man from the window and heard him make noises' would you use any section from the evidence act to support this or reference it to? or simply just state it?

I really appreciate all your work on the STS.

I am feeling really unconfident about the hearsay rule and exceptions - in particular writing it out for part 3. Would there be any possibility of you sharing a tiny tiny snippet so i could get a sense of understanding?

Thanks in advance

Just a quick question - are we required to use AGLC citation when we're citing the Act/any case law?

Thanks!

I understand that, if something is admission, then we should apply admission rules rather than hearsay rules.

but could you please explain - what if the admissions are relevant for a non-hearsay purpose (i.e. prosecution are using it not for the truth of it, but rather to prove maybe they told a lie, or maybe their state of mind)? do we still go on to apply admission rules, or do we need to apply s60 or s66A?

Thanks for all the help!!

the lecturers said that anything the accused said that we use in our case may be characterised as admissions.

take the Sue Neil exam as an example, she told many lies post-offence

by that logic, do we have to apply both (a) post-offence conduct AND (b) admission rules (even though there is not much to talk about for lack of improper police conduct)?

Or do we simply apply the post offence conduct rules, which seems most relevant, but is inconsistent with the lecturers' logic as above.

Thanks a lot >3

Do you mind sharing your timetable while doing the exam, basically, when did you finish reading, when did you start and finish part 1, 2, 3 etc.

I understand that everyone will work a bit differently but will really appreciate one proven timeline since I am getting a bit nervous with time management etc.

Thanks as always...!

A quick question about applying the hearsay rule. The Sue McNeil-Fraser exam says that many made the error of "applying s66 to an available witness's testimony about an unavailable witness's representations." I just want to clarify which representation we are actually applying the rules to in a given circumstance.

Say, if X (available) testified about Y's (unavailable) representations, we would be analysing Y's representations? In which case, we apply s65 to Y's representations.

And if X (available) testified about Y's (unavailable) representations about representations Z (unavailable) made, we would be analysing Z's representations? In which case, we apply s65 to Z's representations.

So, if we're saying that X will testify that the accused (unavailable) said "I will put an octopus in the sewer", the actual representation that we're using to prove the thing is the subject of analysis. Meaning we would apply s65 also if X (available) testified that Y (unavailable) said that Z (unavailable) said "I will put an octopus in the sewer."

All this to say: The representation we are using to prove a thing is the subject of our analysis.

I would greatly appreciate your direction on this issue.

In all of my exams, I have found it really hard to not be repetitive whilst going through the rules of evidence.

For example, my subheading for my first evidence issue would be "Catherine Sands would testify that Elma Sands seemed joyful on the 22nd of Dec" then work through whatever issues i pick up (e.g. hearsay, opinion, admissibility). In this response I would have briefly restated the relevant resections and say how they apply, But then i feel like when i go to my next evidence issue, its the same thing about someone saying something. Like i mean in terms of repeating the actual sections to make my point.

Should i just then assume that because ive said what s59 is above that the reader can refer or should i repeat it again? (Like waste of words??)

Do you have any tips on how to not sound so repetitive for part 3 of the exam?

Additionally, in your opinion, do you think thats is better to work through the evidence admissibility per each 'branch' of your charts?

Like if your chart went:

Main proposition(Reason 1.3): He killed Sevda --> Contention: A knife was used to inflict stab wounds on her (Evidence: Semna saw him pack the knife in his car) --> His knife matches the cut marks on Sevda (Evidence: Expert witness by Dr....)

Would you just go:

Reason 1.3:

A) Testimony of SEMNA

B) Testimony of Docotor

** then work through the issues

OR

Reason 1.3

A) Yusuf wanted to get revenge

Then say Testimony of Semna would show this but then it is inadmissible because of hearsay etc etc.

I know its personal preference, but what do you think markers regard.

Also the wording, no matter which method i choose for the evidence subheadings so the marker knows what im referring to - is it better to say 'Semna's Testimony' or 'Semna claims XXX' or just go broad and say 'Sevda knife injury was inflicted by Yusuf' then all the evidence that supports that. Sorry i know this message is alot. but any guidance would be so helpful

Im just watching your final video now and youre currently going through part 3 evidence #4 First hand hearsay maker available.

Im just a bit confused as to why youve used ss65(2)(b)-(c) when the maker (mechanic) is avaialble?

Why did you bring in both ss65 and 66? You used the maker availble (which makes sense) but then why bring in  (below)

(2)     The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation that is given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made, if the representation—

        (a)     was made under a duty to make that representation or to make representations of that kind; or

        (b)     was made when or shortly after the asserted fact occurred and in circumstances that make it unlikely that the representation is a fabrication; or

        (c)     was made in circumstances that make it highly probable that the representation is reliable; or

Additonally, confused as to why youve said mechanic had a duty, but it doesnt say anything about a duty in s66 for maker available

Thanks

Could you please explain the difference between direct evidence and hearsay. I'm finding myself unable to distinguish between the two.

Thanks