List the dangers weighed before evidence is refused admission
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Set out the three dangers in section 135, each as a blank: that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party; that it might be misleading or confusing; and that it might cause or result in undue waste of time. Do not compare them with probative value. Do not say that the evidence should be refused.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether probative value is substantially outweighed by one of those dangers, and whether to ask the court to refuse admission. Section 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party, be misleading or confusing, or cause or result in undue waste of time. The section does not require refusal. A separate task deals with limiting the use of evidence that is admitted. This task does not decide authenticity.
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Set out the three dangers in section 135, each as a blank: that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party; that it might be misleading or confusing; and that it might cause or result in undue waste of time. Do not compare them with probative value. Do not say that the evidence should be refused. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Keep all three dangers. Do not drop undue waste of time.
- Do not say the evidence is refused, and do not weigh probative value.
- Do not use this list as a limit on the use of evidence that is admitted.
- Do not treat the list as an authenticity finding.
Sources
These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.