LAW313 EVIDENCE AND PROOF T3 2022

LAW313 EVIDENCE AND PROOF T3 2022

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION (40 marks)

1. Sean Forsyth (SF) lives in Glen Innes, NSW. He is now 23. He has had a difficult childhood and been convicted of a number of offences since he was 18. These offences consist of sheep rustling (stealing sheep) and selling illegal drugs. He also regularly attends sheep auctions and is well aware of the price of sheep

2. On 17 June 2022, SF found out that Brittany Powers (BP), who owns a large sheep station called Westerham just outside Glen Innes has approximately 500 prize winning merino sheep on her property ranging in value between $250 per sheep (for ewes) and $600 per sheep (for rams). She regularly trades and works in sheep.

3. On 20 June 2022 at around 1:30 am SF arrived at Westerham in his parents truck. Unbeknown to SF, however, BP was an insomniac and rarely went to bed before 3 am. She was sitting around a campfire just near the main gate to Westerham when she thought she saw a person just inside her property. There were some sheep just there.

4. BP called out and nobody answered. Approximately 5 minutes later she saw SF in the distance (whom she recognised). She untied the leashes of four (4) rottweilers that she owned. She had owned them for over 10 years. Gleefully, the rottweilers ran and immediately attacked SF. They severely bit him causing deep lacerations to his face, back and legs.

5. SF lost a considerable amount of blood and had to undergo a number of skin graft surgeries. He was in hospital for 4 weeks. His face is now severely disfigured.

6. BP was charged with an offence under s 17(1A) Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) (CAA) in that on 20 June 2022 she set or urged dangerous dogs (namely rottweilers) to attack, bite, harass or chase Sean Forsyth.

7. BP has pleaded not guilty to the above offence and the trial before Judge Pitbull of the Glen Innes District Court with a jury is about to begin. A statement of agreed issues has been prepared by counsel for both parties which are as follows:

1. Did BP set or urge her rottweilers to attack, bite, harass or chase Sean Forsyth? (Issue 1)
2. Were the rottweilers dangerous dogs within the meaning of s33 CAA namely, did the rottweilers, without provocation from SF, attack SF? (Issue 2)
3. Did BP use her rottweilers:
   
   

1. in reasonable defence of her property under s 17(2)(a) CAA? (Issue 3)
2. In the course of training them in the working of stock under s 17(2)(c) CAA? (Issue 4).

8. The Crown Prosecutor , Alex Poodle, wishes to tender a written email sent by BP in May 2022 to another owner of a large sheep property with whom she regularly corresponds for the purpose of buying, selling and working sheep. The email states:

I wont ever use the rottweilers for working my sheep as I have tried and they are hopeless. I have seen them easily attack people without being provoked (evidence 1)

9. Alex wants to call Sonia Bassett, BPs neighbour. Sonias evidence is that just before the dogs started running towards SF, she says she heard BP yell :

Oh, its Sean what the hell is he doing here? Go on, boys, get him! (evidence 2)

10. Alex also wants to tender a video lasting 5 minutes. The video was filmed on 18 June 2022. It shows BP dressed in riot gear and chains. It shows her urging a number of her rottweilers at night to chase teenagers away from her property after she thought she saw them trying to steal her sheep. The video was filmed by one of the teenagers. They were not trespassing on her property and nor were they stealing any sheep (evidence 3).

11. Counsel for the Defendant (BP), Sharon Labrador, will be calling BP. However, she also wishes to adduce oral evidence from people who have bought illegal drugs off SF and for which SF has been convicted (evidence 4).

12. Lastly, Sharon wants to cross-examine Sonia Basset by asking her questions about (1) lying in a sworn application for Australian citizenship dated May 2022 and (2) being a member of an ultra-right-wing Australian political party that advocates and regularly commits race hate crimes (evidence 5)

With reference to legal authority, please advise and explain whether:

1. The email dated May 2022 from BP is admissible (evidence 1) (10 marks)
2. It is permissible for Alex to call the evidence of Sonia Bassett (evidence 2) (10 marks);
3. The video referred to in paragraph 10 is admissible (evidence 3) (10 marks);
4. It is permissible for Sharon to call the evidence (other than the evidence of BP) referred to in paragraph 11 (evidence 4) (5 marks);
5. It is permissible for Sharon to cross-examine Sonia on the grounds referred to in paragraph 12 (5 marks)

If any of the above evidence is deemed inadmissible, what other arguments for its admissibility can be made by the relevant parties?

INSTRUCTIONS:

• Due: 4 December 2022 23:59 AEDT;
• Word Limit: 2000 words (excluding footnotes);
• Please structure your answer by inserting relevant headings such as question A, question B, etc so that markers can allocate appropriate marks to each question in your answer;
• You do not need a bibliography.
• Please try to restrict your footnotes only to relevant cases and legislation. Please avoid including references in footnotes to secondary sources such as textbooks, articles or electronic resources, However, such references are not prohibited.
• Please comply with the AGLC 4^th edition;
• Student should generally follow the IRAC method to set out the relevant law first and then apply it to the facts before reaching a conclusion as to whether the pieces of evidence are admissible or inadmissible.
• The issues relevant to this assignment are covered in LAW313 Topics 1-5 (inclusive). Your answer should only be confined to these topics. Please avoid referring to the law in any other topics even though you may think that it is relevant.
• You do not need to refer to any of the provisions of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) other than the sections referred to in the facts above

MARKING CRITERIA

Content demonstrates

• Identification of issues
• Knowledge of the relevant case law;
• Knowledge of other options available

Structure demonstrates

• Coherent, well-signposted organisation (e.g. use of headings)
• Expression, style and presentation demonstrates

• Recognition of nature of audience;

• Recognition of purpose of assessment i.e. to advise a client
  
  
• Written in plain English, in a style which is clear, fluent and concise
• Careful proofreading

Citation

• Complies with AGLC 4^th edition

Word Length

• Within the stated word length