​​​​​​​
You are here: Skip breadcrumbAttorney-General's Department >> Legal system >> Uniform Evidence Acts comparative tables

Uniform Evidence Acts comparative tables

The downloadable tables below note where the provisions are substantially equivalent, substantially different, or where there are no equivalent sections in the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), in comparison to the following Acts:

All of these Acts are based on the Model Uniform Evidence Bill, as endorsed by the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in 2007. 

Provisions which are substantially equivalent include provisions that have minor drafting variations such as those required because an Act is to operate in a jurisdiction that is not the Commonwealth. For example, the following are considered to be minor drafting variations:

  • references to a court of a particular state or territory (ie a ‘New South Wales court’ in the New South Wales Act) in place of a ‘court’ in the Commonwealth Act
  • differences in terminology, for example where ‘accused’ is used in the Victorian Act, whereas ‘defendant’ is used in the Commonwealth Act.

Provisions that are substantially different include instances where a subsection of the Commonwealth Act does not appear in the equivalent Act of the jurisdiction or where a jurisdiction has included a subsection in its Act that is additional to what appears in the Commonwealth Act. 

These tables are current as at 10 July 2015.