|
Evidence Act 2006
The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings. The foundations of the Act started in August 1989, when the Law Commission started work on reviewing the nation's piecemeal evidence laws. A decade of work culminated in August 1999 with the Commission producing a draft Evidence Code on which the Evidence Act is based. The Evidence Bill was introduced in May 2006 and passed its third and final reading on 23 November 2006. The majority of the Act came into force on 1 August 2007. Structure *Part 1 — Preliminary provisions (s 6-15) *Part 2 — Admissibility rules, privilege, and confidentiality **Subpart 1 — Hearsay evidence (s 16-22A) **Subpart 2 — Statements of opinion and expert evidence ( ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
New Zealand Parliament
The New Zealand Parliament ( mi, Pāremata Aotearoa) is the unicameral legislature of New Zealand, consisting of the King of New Zealand (King-in-Parliament) and the New Zealand House of Representatives. The King is usually represented by his governor-general. Before 1951, there was an upper chamber, the New Zealand Legislative Council. The New Zealand Parliament was established in 1854 and is one of the oldest continuously functioning legislatures in the world. It has met in Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, since 1865. The House of Representatives normally consists of 120 members of Parliament (MPs), though sometimes more due to overhang seats. There are 72 MPs elected directly in electorates while the remainder of seats are assigned to list MPs based on each party's share of the total party vote. Māori were represented in Parliament from 1867, and in 1893 women gained the vote. Although elections can be called early, each three years Parliament is dissolved and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Oranga Tamariki Act 1989
The Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 or Children's and Young People's Well-being Act 1989 (titled the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 prior to 14 July 2017) is an Act of the New Zealand Parliament that was passed in 1989. The Act's main purpose is to "promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families and family groups." In June 2017, the New Zealand Parliament passed amendment legislation renaming the bill the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Key provisions Considered to be groundbreaking legislation at the time, the Act introduced the Family Group Conference (FGC) as a means of making decisions about a child or young person that did not involve a Court Hearing. The Act set out procedures for the removal of abused children from their parent's care, making the best interests of the child the first consideration. It also set out procedures for dealing with youth offenders, making arrest and imprisonment interventions of last resort. Although Police in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Leading Question
In common law systems that rely on testimony by witnesses, a leading question is a question that suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. The use of leading questions in court to elicit testimony is restricted in order to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented. Depending on the circumstances, leading questions can be objectionable or proper. The propriety of leading questions generally depends on the relationship of the witness to the party conducting the examination. An examiner may generally ask leading questions of a hostile witness or on cross-examination ("Will help to elicit the testimony of a witness who, due to age, incapacity, or limited intelligence, is having difficulty communicating her evidence"), but not on direct examination (to "coach" the witness to provide a particular answer). According to ''Black's Law Dictionary','' a leading question is defined as "question t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contempt Of Court
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn (as in "to contemn a court order") and a person guilty of this is a contemnor. There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions. In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain information can constitute contempt of the court. When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue an order i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Redirect Examination
Redirect examination, in the United States, is the questioning of a witness who has already provided testimony under oath in response to direct examination as well as cross examination by the opponent. On redirect, the attorney offering the witness will ask additional questions that attempt to rehabilitate the witness's credibility, or otherwise mitigate deficiencies identified and explored by the opponent on cross. For example, the opponent might elicit on cross-examination an admission that the witness did not directly perceive every single part of the events at issue; the proponent will attempt on redirect to establish that the witness perceived enough of those events that the finder of fact can draw reasonable inferences as to the gaps where the witness's perception was obstructed. "Recross" is sometimes allowed, but usually the opposing attorney must ask for permission from the judge before proceeding with that additional round of questioning. In Australia, Canada, India ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cross-examination
In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a redirect (re-examination in Ireland, England, Scotland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Pakistan). Redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (may vary by jurisdiction). Variations by jurisdiction In the United States federal Courts, a cross-examini ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Direct Examination
The direct examination or examination-in-chief is one stage in the process of adducing evidence from witnesses in a court of law. Direct examination is the questioning of a witness by the lawyer/side/party that called such witness in a trial. Direct examination is usually performed to elicit evidence in support of facts which will satisfy a required element of a party's claim or defense. In direct examination, one is generally prohibited from asking leading questions. This prevents a lawyer from feeding answers to a favorable witness. An exception to this rule occurs if one side has called a witness, but it is either understood or becomes clear, that the witness is hostile to the calling lawyer's side of the controversy, the lawyer who called the witness may then ask the court to declare the person on the stand a hostile witness. If the court does so, the lawyer may thereafter ask witness leading questions during direct examination. The techniques of direct examination are t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Perjury
Perjury (also known as foreswearing) is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding."Perjury The act or an instance of a person’s deliberately making material false or misleading statements while under oath. – Also termed false swearing; false oath; (archaically forswearing." Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the ''intention'' (''mens rea'') to commit the act and to have ''actually committed'' the act (''actus reus''). Further, statements that ''are facts'' cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding. Statements that entail an ''interpretation'' of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly or make honest mistakes without ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Affirmation In Law
In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath. Some religious adherents hold beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises but forbid them to swear an oath before a deity. Additionally, an individual may decline making a religious oath due to their personal beliefs, or those of their audience. In some jurisdictions, an affirmation may be given only if such a reason is provided. United Kingdom A right to give an affirmation has existed in English law since the Quakers Act 1695 (An Act that the Solemne Affirmation & Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Forme; 7 & 8 Will. 3 c. 34) was passed. The text of the affirmation was the following: "I A.B. do declare in the P ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Oath
Traditionally an oath (from Anglo-Saxon ', also called plight) is either a statement of fact or a promise taken by a sacrality as a sign of verity. A common legal substitute for those who conscientiously object to making sacred oaths is to give an affirmation instead. Nowadays, even when there is no notion of sanctity involved, certain promises said out loud in ceremonial or juridical purpose are referred to as oaths. "To swear" is a verb used to describe the taking of an oath, to making a solemn vow. Etymology The word come from Anglo-Saxon ' judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise," from Proto-Germanic '' *aiþaz'' (source also of Old Norse eiðr, Swedish ed, Old Saxon, Old Frisian eth, Middle Dutch eet, Dutch eed, German Eid, Gothic aiþs "oath"), from PIE *oi-to- "an oath" (source also of Old Irish oeth "oath"). Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure and it may ultimately ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Governor-General Of New Zealand
The governor-general of New Zealand ( mi, te kāwana tianara o Aotearoa) is the Viceroy, viceregal representative of the Monarchy of New Zealand, monarch of New Zealand, currently King Charles III. As the King is concurrently the monarch of 14 other Commonwealth realms and lives in the United Kingdom, he, on the Advice (constitutional), advice of his Prime Minister of New Zealand, New Zealand prime minister, appoints a governor-general to carry out his constitutional and ceremonial duties within the Realm of New Zealand. The current office traces its origins to when the administration of New Zealand was placed under the Colony of New South Wales in 1839 and its governor was given jurisdiction over New Zealand. New Zealand would become Colony of New Zealand, its own colony the next year with its own governor. The modern title and functions of the "governor-general" came into being in 1917, and the office is currently mandated by Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Queen Of New Zealand
The monarchy of New Zealand is the constitutional system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign and head of state of New Zealand. The current monarch, King Charles III, ascended the throne following the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022. The King's eldest son, William, Prince of Wales, is the heir apparent. The Treaty of Waitangi between Queen Victoria and Māori chiefs () was signed in 1840, and as a result, the British sovereign became New Zealand's head of state. New Zealand gradually became independent from Britain and the monarchy evolved to become a distinctly New Zealand institution, represented by unique symbols. The New Zealand monarch is currently shared with 14 other countries (realms) within the Commonwealth of Nations, all independent and the monarchy of each being legally distinct. As a result, the current monarch is officially titled ''King of New Zealand'' ( mi, Kīngi o Aotearoa) and, in this capacity, he, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> Cross-examination")
