Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence
Relevance and admissibility
This domain tests the logical and legal gates through which evidence must pass. Relevance asks whether the material tends to make a fact in issue more or less probable. Admissibility asks whether a relevant item is legally receivable. Relevance is necessary but never sufficient.
Core rules
- Facts in issue and collateral facts. Evidence must connect to a fact in issue, or to credit or impeachment on a permitted basis. Answers on collateral matters are generally final.
- Direct and circumstantial evidence. Both are admissible. Circumstantial evidence invites inference and is assessed by weight, not by a separate admissibility rule.
- Exclusionary filters. Hearsay, character, opinion, privilege, confession and unfairness rules can exclude relevant material.
- Discretion. A judge may exclude evidence where probative value is outweighed by prejudice, misleading effect, confusion or unfairness to the accused. Prejudice means an improper basis for decision, not merely evidence that damages the defence.
- Weight. Once admitted, the tribunal of fact decides what the evidence proves; reliability, consistency and context affect weight.
Worked example
In a robbery trial the prosecution adduces evidence that the accused owned a balaclava similar to the one used. Similarity makes identity more probable, so the evidence is relevant. It is not inadmissible merely because it is circumstantial. If balaclavas are common and there is no other link, probative value is weak and the judge may exclude it as more prejudicial than probative. If the balaclava carries the victim's DNA, probative value rises sharply, although continuity and contamination remain weight issues.
Traps
Do not equate relevant with admissible. Do not call evidence prejudicial simply because it helps the opponent. Do not overlook non-hearsay uses of a statement. Do not argue weight as if it were admissibility, unless the unfairness discretion is engaged.