澳洲论文代写：案例说明
在这种情况下，两人在被指控人身伤害有意图的。被记录在这种情况下，这些指控是基于“某种程度上”的一个口头陈述，由被害人，后来被人发现死（但受害者的死亡原因是“没有根据他的伤”，他遭受了）。斯宾塞（2011）突出的情况下，剩余的上诉人被指控绑架，和他们的信念完全对齐”在某种程度上”之一，由一个事件的受害者的人参加审判过程作了口头承诺。
这是允许的刑事司法在2003法令允许的证据，展示了这样的审判法官。该法提供了一个很一般的假设的证据听证不应属于刑事案件的审判，但假设被否定时允许证人或受害者是由于一个突出显示的一些原因不可用（这是受害者包括死者是谁在下节116开始试验（2）（一）或证人谁在逃由于害怕116条线索（2）（E）。
案例说明
In this case, both the Appellants in the case had been accused of having bodily injuries with a sense of intent. The accusations that were recorded in this case were based “to a decisive extent” on one of the verbal statements that were given by the victim, who was later found dead (but the reason of the death of the victim was “not based on his injuries” that he suffered). Spencer (2011) highlighted that the remaining appellants of the case were accused of kidnapping, and their conviction was completely in alignment “to a decisive extent” on one of the verbal commitments made by one of the victims of the incident who feared to attend the trail process.
It was permissible under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow the evidences that were showcased in this manner by the trial judges. The Act provided for a very generic presumption that the hearing of the evidence should not be permitted in the trials pertaining to the criminal cases but the assumptions were negated when the witnesses or the victims were not available due to one of the number of highlighted reasons (this is inclusive of that victim who was dead even before the initiation of the trial under section 116(2) (a) or the witness who was absconding due to fear of the trail under section 116(2) (e).
