QLD BAR PREPARATION TEST 2026
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT 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: Anti-ambush rule for fairness. Allows other party to call
evidence so they can explain it.
Court can then enjoy joinder evidence/FII.
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.
,Provide an example.
● 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.
Provide example.
● 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.
Provide example of each.
● 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)
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT 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: Anti-ambush rule for fairness. Allows other party to call
evidence so they can explain it.
Court can then enjoy joinder evidence/FII.
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.
,Provide an example.
● 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.
Provide example.
● 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.
Provide example of each.
● 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)
