Normal view MARC view ISBD view

"Any evidence" in the Family Court Caroline Hickman

By: Hickman, Caroline.
Material type: materialTypeLabelBookPublisher: 2017Description: electronic document (82 pages) ; PDF file.Other title: LLM dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.Subject(s): CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004 | CHILDREN'S RIGHTS | EVIDENCE | EVIDENCE ACT 2006 | FAMILY COURT | FAMILY LAW | JUSTICE | LAW REFORM | LEGISLATION | THESES | NEW ZEALANDOnline resources: Click here to access online Summary: This dissertation examines the origins and justification for the “any evidence” rule which has been a feature of New Zealand family law for many years. The rule provides judicial discretion to admit evidence in the Family Court which would be otherwise inadmissible. Its ongoing value has never been closely examined, although the rule has frequently been criticised. Selected cases have been examined to determine if reliance on the Evidence Act without the “any evidence” rule would have the deleterious outcomes contemplated. Analysis has shown that the rule has very little use and conversely, that the detriment caused by the rule is greater than the harm it was designed to remedy. Repeal and reform options are considered to better achieve the specific purposes of the various family law statutes as well as improve the integrity of the Family Court process overall. (Author's abstract). Record #6293
Item type Current location Call number Status Date due Barcode
Access online Access online Online Available ON19060010

LLM (Victoria University of Wellington)

This dissertation examines the origins and justification for the “any evidence” rule which has been a feature of New Zealand family law for many years. The rule provides judicial discretion to admit evidence in the Family Court which would be otherwise inadmissible. Its ongoing value has never been closely examined, although the rule has frequently been criticised.

Selected cases have been examined to determine if reliance on the Evidence Act without the “any evidence” rule would have the deleterious outcomes contemplated. Analysis has shown that the rule has very little use and conversely, that the detriment caused by the rule is greater than the harm it was designed to remedy.

Repeal and reform options are considered to better achieve the specific purposes of the various family law statutes as well as improve the integrity of the Family Court process overall. (Author's abstract). Record #6293