Abstract:
This paper examines the Evidence Act 2006 to determine whether it has been a successful codification of the law of evidence in New Zealand. It firstly looks to define what the definition of a code is, and then what values and qualities are attached with it. The depth of the research conducted by the Law Commission is recognised to have been crucial in providing for such a comprehensive and coherent Act. The Law Commissions reference to other jurisdictions is evident in the final Act with inclusions such as a gap filling provision, which is implemented in the Canadian Evidence Act. The preliminary provisions of the Act, as well as s 202, are examined to discover whether they provide for the added values of a code. It is also important that the changes caused by codification are recognised. This is because the law was contradictive and incremental, and for the code to be true comprehensive coherent code, it must have adopted change. Lastly, this paper will conclude with the following heading; by and large has the Act and Codification been worthwhile?
