This provision has not been checked by a human. The text below was read automatically from the official PDF and has not yet been verified against it, so it may differ from the provision as published — in its wording, its numbering, or where one provision ends and the next begins. For the authorised text, see legislation.vic.gov.au.
sets out the test for determining a witness's competence to give sworn and unsworn evidence. See clause 17 for the separate procedures applying to defendants in criminal proceedings. The UEAs contain two tests for determining competence, one each in relation to giving sworn and unsworn evidence. Each test requires a demonstration of an understanding of the difference between truth and lies. The 2005 LRCs' Report noted that these tests have been criticised for being too similar and restrictive. The Bill clarifies the distinction between sworn and unsworn evidence and focuses on the ability of the person to act as a witness (pursuant to recommendations 4-1 and 4-2 of the 2005 LRCs' Report). Subclause (1) of this Bill provides that all witnesses must satisfy the test of general competence in subclause (1). This general test in clause 13 moves away from the "truth and lies" distinction and focuses instead on the ability of the witness to comprehend and communicate. The purpose of the test of general competence is to ensure it is broad enough to enhance participation of witnesses so that relevant information is put before the court. The new general test of competence provides that a person is not competent to give evidence (either sworn or unsworn) about a fact if the person lacks the capacity to understand, or to give an answer that can be understood, to a question about that fact, and that incapacity cannot be overcome. A Note to the subclause refers to clause 30 which provides that a witness may give evidence through an interpreter and clause 31 which applies to deaf or mute witnesses. Subclause (2) provides that even if the general test of competence is not satisfied in relation to one fact, a witness may be competent to give evidence about other facts. For example, a young child may be able to reply to simple factual questions but not to questions which require inferences to be drawn. When a person is competent to give evidence, the following subclauses set out whether that witness should give sworn or unsworn evidence. Subclause (3) provides that a person is not competent to give sworn evidence if he or she does not have the capacity to understand that he or she is under an obligation to give truthful evidence. Subclause (4) provides that, subject to the requirements of subclause (5) being met, a person who is not competent to give sworn evidence about a fact, may be competent to give unsworn evidence about the fact. The provision is intended to allow witnesses such as young children and others (for example, adults with an intellectual disability) to give unsworn evidence even though they do not understand concepts such as "truth". Subclause (5) provides that if a person is not competent to give sworn evidence because of subclause (3), then the person is competent to give unsworn evidence when certain criteria are met. The court is required to inform the person of the importance of telling the truth, explain how the witness should respond to questions to which the witness does not know or cannot remember the answer, and that the witness should not feel pressured into agreeing with any statements that are untrue. Subclause (6) provides that a person is presumed to be competent to give evidence, unless it is proven that he or she is incompetent. Subclause (7) provides that evidence given by a witness is not inadmissible merely because, before the witness finishes giving evidence, that witness dies or is no longer competent to give evidence. Subclause (8) provides that, when a court is determining if a person is competent to give evidence, whether it is sworn or unsworn, the court may inform itself as it thinks fit, including by reference to the opinion of an expert.