QLD BAR BOARD EVALUATION 2026
GUARANTEED PASS ANSWERS GRADED A+
● Judge's Discretion. Answer: A judge has a discretion to exclude
evidence (eg. a confession) on the ground that it is highly prejudicial and
not probative (reliable) or for public policy reasons (eg. evidence
illegally obtained): Bunning v Cross (1978); s130 Evidence Act 1977
(Qld); ss135-139 EA; R v Christie.
● Browne v Dunn. Answer: Rule: Unless notice has been given, Counsel
that wishes to contradict a witness by calling other evidence must put
that evidence to the witness for their comment.
Rationale: unfair not to allow witness opportunity to respond to
contention.
Consequences of non-compliance:
Ethical and evidentiary implications; can be given less weight, denial of
right to respond by party/witness, other party may be entitled recall
evidence/put rebuttal evidence. Potential mistrial, appeal or jury warning
given.
● Jones v Dunkel [1959]. Answer: Rule: In certain circumstances, a
party that provides an unexplained failure to provide evidence may lead
,to an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted the
party's case.
Rationale: Deterrence against parties tempted to withhold evidence;
promotes fairness, discourages parties from hiding or suppressing
evidence that could weaken their position, and promotes transparency.
● When does Jones v Dunkel not apply?. Answer: Limited application in
criminal proceedings, can be used against Crown.
Also does not apply in the appropriate circumstances: 1) when the party
is 'required to explain or contradict something' and 2) it is within their
power to tender it, and 3) there is no adequate explanation as to failure.
● Bunning v Cross [1978]. Answer: Rule: Evidence that was obtained
unlawfully/improperly must not be admitted unless the
importance/probative value > factors (public interest, unfairness and
prejudice). Codified in s138 CEA. Factors are: deliberateness of the
conduct, probative value of the evidence, ease with which compliance
with law might have been achieved, nature of the offence charged,
purpose of the legislative restrictions.
Rationale: Striking a balance between enforcing public interest with fair
policing/disclosure against exclusion of evidence otherwise not
manifestly unfair/prejudicial (eg niche technical points). Operative
, deterrence against bad policing and reliance on exclusionary rules of
evidence.
● Exclusion of Relevant Evidence. Answer: 1) R v Christie: prejudicial
value > probative value.
2) Unfairness in s 130 EAQ/s 135 EAC.
● Admissibility of expert evidence. Answer: 7 conditions, also in s 79
EAC.
1) Expert opinion is in field of specialised knowledge.
2) Identified aspect of that field which witness is an expert (by training,
study or experience.
3) The opinion is wholly/substantially based on the expert's
KNOWLEDGE
4) Expert must identify factual assumptions/primary facts which form
the opinion (assumption identification rule)
5) Evidence is, or will be admitted that supports the findings of primary
fact which are 'sufficiently' like the factual assumptions used by experts
(the basis rule)*
6) Must establish facts used on which the opinion is formed.
7) Must be an intelligible scientific/intellectual basis for the opinion
demonstrated.
● Relevance. Answer: Relevance: on ramp to the highway. Evidence is
relevant when it tends to prove or disprove a FII.
GUARANTEED PASS ANSWERS GRADED A+
● Judge's Discretion. Answer: A judge has a discretion to exclude
evidence (eg. a confession) on the ground that it is highly prejudicial and
not probative (reliable) or for public policy reasons (eg. evidence
illegally obtained): Bunning v Cross (1978); s130 Evidence Act 1977
(Qld); ss135-139 EA; R v Christie.
● Browne v Dunn. Answer: Rule: Unless notice has been given, Counsel
that wishes to contradict a witness by calling other evidence must put
that evidence to the witness for their comment.
Rationale: unfair not to allow witness opportunity to respond to
contention.
Consequences of non-compliance:
Ethical and evidentiary implications; can be given less weight, denial of
right to respond by party/witness, other party may be entitled recall
evidence/put rebuttal evidence. Potential mistrial, appeal or jury warning
given.
● Jones v Dunkel [1959]. Answer: Rule: In certain circumstances, a
party that provides an unexplained failure to provide evidence may lead
,to an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted the
party's case.
Rationale: Deterrence against parties tempted to withhold evidence;
promotes fairness, discourages parties from hiding or suppressing
evidence that could weaken their position, and promotes transparency.
● When does Jones v Dunkel not apply?. Answer: Limited application in
criminal proceedings, can be used against Crown.
Also does not apply in the appropriate circumstances: 1) when the party
is 'required to explain or contradict something' and 2) it is within their
power to tender it, and 3) there is no adequate explanation as to failure.
● Bunning v Cross [1978]. Answer: Rule: Evidence that was obtained
unlawfully/improperly must not be admitted unless the
importance/probative value > factors (public interest, unfairness and
prejudice). Codified in s138 CEA. Factors are: deliberateness of the
conduct, probative value of the evidence, ease with which compliance
with law might have been achieved, nature of the offence charged,
purpose of the legislative restrictions.
Rationale: Striking a balance between enforcing public interest with fair
policing/disclosure against exclusion of evidence otherwise not
manifestly unfair/prejudicial (eg niche technical points). Operative
, deterrence against bad policing and reliance on exclusionary rules of
evidence.
● Exclusion of Relevant Evidence. Answer: 1) R v Christie: prejudicial
value > probative value.
2) Unfairness in s 130 EAQ/s 135 EAC.
● Admissibility of expert evidence. Answer: 7 conditions, also in s 79
EAC.
1) Expert opinion is in field of specialised knowledge.
2) Identified aspect of that field which witness is an expert (by training,
study or experience.
3) The opinion is wholly/substantially based on the expert's
KNOWLEDGE
4) Expert must identify factual assumptions/primary facts which form
the opinion (assumption identification rule)
5) Evidence is, or will be admitted that supports the findings of primary
fact which are 'sufficiently' like the factual assumptions used by experts
(the basis rule)*
6) Must establish facts used on which the opinion is formed.
7) Must be an intelligible scientific/intellectual basis for the opinion
demonstrated.
● Relevance. Answer: Relevance: on ramp to the highway. Evidence is
relevant when it tends to prove or disprove a FII.
