I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Anastasia Qvist is an outstanding lawyer. My criminal law situation (family violence order) was difficult, complex and Ana's diligence saved me as I was going through the most difficult period of my life. Ana is down to earth, commonsense and she even kept our costs to a minimum. She is a skilled litigator and knows the ins and outs of the ACT Magistrates Court. She dealt skillfully with the DPP and is an excellent negotiator. You will get a fair representation and she genuinely cares about her clients. She has my complete recommendation. The lady goes to bat for her clients.
I would strongly recommend Anastasia to anyone who is seeking legal representation. As a first-time offender who was charged with a Level 2 Drink Driving offence, she walked me through every step of the matter and was very upfront and clear on all aspects of my case. She was always accessible when I needed advice. Her approach and advice were excellent. Under her representation, I received the best possible outcome and managed to avoid a criminal conviction. She was a pleasure to deal with throughout the whole matter.
Anastasia Qvist was very professional and helpful in every step of my matter. I got a very good outcome and I can’t thank you enough for your hard work and the Armstrong Legal team in Canberra. I would highly recommend her!!!
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
When a witness for the prosecution or defence gives evidence in court during a trial, contested hearing or committal hearing, this is known as examination-in-chief. Examination-in-chief is when a witness is asked questions by the party that has called them. After giving examination-in-chief, witnesses are cross-examined by the other party. During cross-examination, their evidence is tested.
When a witness is called to give their examination-in-chief they are asked their name and must take an oath or affirmation that their evidence will be the truth. They are then asked a series of questions, which they must try to answer to the best of their ability. Restrictions are imposed by common law, the uniform Evidence Acts and other legislation on what questions can be asked during examination-in-chief.
What questions are not allowed in examination-in-chief?
When conducting examination-in-chief, parties must avoid asking questions in an impermissible form. Doing so will usually lead to an objection from the other party, which will interrupt the flow of the evidence and detract from the witness’s impact.
During examination-in-chief, parties must not ask leading questions. Leading questions are questions that suggest an answer, like “Was the person tall?” or “Were they wearing a red jumper?”. Instead, ask open questions that do not suggest the answer, such as, “How tall was the person?” or “What were they wearing?”.
Questions asked during examination-in-chief must be limited to matters that are relevant. If you want to ask a question and the relevance of the question is not immediately apparent, you should explain to the court why the question is necessary and why it should be allowed.
Examination-in-chief questions should not invite a witness to give evidence to the court that is inadmissible hearsay. Inadmissible hearsay evidence is evidence given by one person of what someone else said in order to establish the truth of the other person’s statement. However, evidence of what someone else said is not inadmissible hearsay if the evidence is given for a purpose other than establishing the truth of the statement. For example, if a person is charged with making a threat, a witness can give evidence that they heard the accused make the threat.
A witness should not be asked to give an opinion about something that is outside their area of expertise. A witness can, however, be asked to give an opinion about something that is common knowledge. For example, a witness can be asked how fast a vehicle was travelling or how old a person was, but they should not be asked to give an opinion that requires specialist knowledge, such as a medical opinion (unless they are suitably qualified.)
Can a child give examination-in-chief?
A child can give evidence in a criminal proceeding if the court can establish that the child is capable of understanding the duty to tell the truth to the court. This can be established in an age-appropriate way for the child’s age and level of maturity. A child does not have to give an oath or affirmation in the formal manner that an adult witness does.
Privilege of non-incrimination
It is possible that during their evidence, a witness may be asked a question whose answer could incriminate them in criminal offending other than the offending that is being dealt with. A common example of a question that could incriminate a witness is “Had you taken any drugs that day?”
Questions that could incriminate a witness will generally not be disallowed, but the court will generally inform the witness that they do not have to answer. The witness can then choose to answer the question or not to, knowing that they may incriminate themself if they answer.
The privilege of non-incrimination is lost where an accused chooses to give evidence in their defence.
If a witness’s testimony does not help the case of the party that called them, they are referred to as an unfavourable witness. A witness is unfavourable if they can’t remember the crucial facts in the statement they originally gave to the prosecution or defence. The party that called the unfavourable witness may ask the court for leave for the witness to be allowed to reread their original statement to refresh their memory. If after rereading their statement, the witness still cannot recall their evidence, they should be removed from the witness box.
If a witness gives evidence that is harmful to the case of the party that called them, they are known as a “hostile witness”. A witness is “hostile” if they deliberately give different evidence from the evidence they gave in their original statement. If a witness is hostile, the party calling them can ask permission from the court to treat them as a hostile witness. If permission is granted, the party will be allowed to cross-examine the witness and suggest to them that they are not being honest.
Preparing your examination-in-chief
If you are representing yourself in a contested matter, you must carefully prepare your examination-in-chief. Think about all the information you need from a witness and how you can get this information without resorting to leading questions. In examination-in-chief, you are allowed to use open or closed questions. When you are eliciting a witness’s story from them, it is generally better to use open questions. When you need a witness to give specific detail, you may have to ask a closed question.
If you need legal advice or assistance in a criminal matter or any other legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
A voir dire is a part of a legal proceeding where a preliminary question of law is decided. This may…
In criminal matters, it is common for witnesses to be called to give evidence orally. Witnesses may be called to…
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof that applies in criminal matters. It is a higher standard than…
WHERE TO NEXT?
If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.
WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth