LEV3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 [COMPLETE
ANSWERS] 2024 SEMESTER 2 100%
TRUSTED WORKINGS
Question 1:
Discuss the principle of relevance in the law of evidence and how it affects the admissibility of
evidence in court.
Answer:
The principle of relevance is fundamental to the law of evidence, stating that only evidence that
is relevant to the issues at hand is admissible in court. Relevance is determined by whether the
evidence has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. If the evidence does not relate directly to the matter being decided, it is considered
irrelevant and inadmissible. The court exercises judicial discretion in determining the relevance
of evidence, balancing its probative value against any potential to prejudice, confuse, or mislead
the jury.
Question 2:
Explain the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. Provide examples of each.
Answer:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without the need for inference, such as a witness testifying
that they saw the defendant commit a crime. For example, a surveillance video showing the act
would be direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires the trier of fact to draw inferences to
connect it to a conclusion of fact. An example would be fingerprints found at the crime scene
that suggest the defendant was present, which requires an inference to conclude that the
defendant committed the crime.
ANSWERS] 2024 SEMESTER 2 100%
TRUSTED WORKINGS
Question 1:
Discuss the principle of relevance in the law of evidence and how it affects the admissibility of
evidence in court.
Answer:
The principle of relevance is fundamental to the law of evidence, stating that only evidence that
is relevant to the issues at hand is admissible in court. Relevance is determined by whether the
evidence has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. If the evidence does not relate directly to the matter being decided, it is considered
irrelevant and inadmissible. The court exercises judicial discretion in determining the relevance
of evidence, balancing its probative value against any potential to prejudice, confuse, or mislead
the jury.
Question 2:
Explain the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. Provide examples of each.
Answer:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without the need for inference, such as a witness testifying
that they saw the defendant commit a crime. For example, a surveillance video showing the act
would be direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires the trier of fact to draw inferences to
connect it to a conclusion of fact. An example would be fingerprints found at the crime scene
that suggest the defendant was present, which requires an inference to conclude that the
defendant committed the crime.
