Andrew Dahdal (Macquarie University – Division of Law) has posted Logical and Legal Relevance Under the Uniform Evidence Law: The Recognition of ‘Natural Logic’ on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This paper explores the rules of evidence relating to the admissibility of ‘relevant’ evidence under the Uniform Evidence Law and measures the prevailing regime against the `natural logic’ ideal espoused by some scholars. The common law basis for the rules relating to the admissibility of ‘relevant’ evidence suffered from a number of problems. One of the main problems was that the distinction between logical and legal relevance effectively hid policy considerations in the judicial process and undermined the supposedly objective grounds upon which relevancy determinations were based. The Uniform evidence law was intended to remedy this situation. Upon looking at the framing of this issue in the case law since the adoption of the uniform law, this paper concludes that the way in which relevance is today understood in Australian courts, is closer to the more objective approach founded upon the basis of ‘natural logic’ than it was under the common law.