1. Following the fight in the hotel, Max was running to his car when he ran into an old neighbour, Bob, who wanted to have a chat. Max said, 'I can't stop now I'm pissed off and pissed and I think I just glassed someone.' Bob made a statement to the Police about this and was called by the prosecution to give evidence at the trial. When Bob was giving evidence at the trial, he suddenly denied that Max had said these words to him. What could the prosecutor do in this situation? Can Bob's statement be admitted into evidence? If so, how and for what purpose?
2. After Max was arrested and charged, he was then interviewed by the police. During a break in the interview and while the recording equipment was turned off, one Police officer said to Max, 'You've got a young child with your defacto don't you? You don't want them to be visiting you in gaol do you? If you admit to this offence now, we might be able to reduce the charge to common assault and you'll probably get off quite lightly.' If Max subsequently admitted on tape to assault, what could the defence argue about the admissibility of this admission?
3. What are the justifications and dangers of allowing admissions into evidence as an exception to the rule against hearsay?
4. With reference to Melbourne v The Queen, explain character evidence and its relationship to credibility and tendency evidence.
5. Max wants to call evidence that he is a good father and does volunteer work in the community. What risks does Max run in calling this evidence and how, if at all, can he protect himself against those risks?
6. Max wants to call his mother to give evidence that she has never seen Max act violently toward other people. The prosecution have a witness who saw Max threaten a bar tender with a broken glass. What risks does Max run in calling this evidence? What is the procedure for the prosecution introducing the evidence of their witness?