Abstract
The collateral evidence rule restricts the admissibility of evidence that undermines the credit of witnesses. Given the obvious importance of such evidence to accurate fact-determination, it is remarkable that the rule has been subject to so little academic scrutiny. This article, a critical analysis of the rule, argues for its abolition. In doing so, regard is had to other rules that impinge on its ambit and to the way in which it has been applied and modified in a number of jurisdictions.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
