Australia Leading Case legal and evidential burdenwitness statements

Jones v Dunkel

(1959) 101 CLR 298

JurisdictionAustralia

CourtHigh Court of Australia

Year1959

StatusBinding authority

Summary

A party's failure to call a witness who might be expected to support their case permits an inference that the uncalled evidence would not have assisted that party.

Key Principle

The HCA held that where a party fails to call a witness who might be expected to support their case, the court may draw an inference that the evidence would not have assisted that party (the Jones v Dunkel inference).

Area of Law

evidence

Related Cases

Warden v Bailey (2020) 103 NSWLR 207

IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300

Under UEA s 97, tendency evidence in sexual offence cases requires significant probative value but no striking similarity between the tendency and charged acts.

Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588

Expert opinion evidence is admissible only if based on specialised knowledge, and the expert must identify the facts and reasoning underlying the opinion.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Jones v Dunkel and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Jones v Dunkel