This post was written by Jenny, EAGLE facilitator, and reviewed and approved by Professor jeremy Gans, Evidence and Proof subject coordinator
Sincere thanks to both on behalf of the LASC and our students.
The Evidence Exam: Strategies for Success
In 2026, the Evidence and Proof teaching team changed this subject’s assessment structure. What was previously assessed in a 3-day take-home final exam has now been broken down into two parts, namely the interim assessment and a final exam.
In this post, I will aim to provide some clarity on these assessment tasks and offer some tips on how to prepare well for the exam. It will be reaffirmed that the approach to study will remain the same for each task. In addition to the suggestions in this article, it is also important to consult the Guide to Academic Success for additional advice and guidance.
The Previous Assessment and the Changes
The Evidence Exam used to be a weekend-long assessment. It required past students to (1) build a factual case theory based on the evidence in the brief (‘the factual theory’); (2) describe how the evidence can rationally be used to prove the case (‘the proof’); and (3) evaluate the impact of the law of evidence on the proof (‘the law’).
The current assessment structure divides these three tasks between the interim assignment and the final exam. The interim assignment, called a ‘fact analysis’, includes the (1) factual theory and may include a component of (2) the proof, whereas the final exam concerns (3) the law.
The final exam is in a different format compared to past years. First, the final exam will be based on a different evidence brief, as opposed to the one used for the interim. Second, this evidence brief will be released on the last day of Week 12. Third, the exam problem will provide you with a complete proof, upon which you will need to apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (‘Evidence Act’), all of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) (‘Jury Directions Act’) and set provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Crimes Act’). Fourth, the exam will be closed-book.
The Interim Assessment and Tips
The interim assessment includes the factual theory and may include a component of the proof.
1 The Factual Theory
The factual theory is a creative writing exercise. You are a storyteller, trying to compel your reader to buy what you’re selling — a case theory. As you go through, the questions you should be asking yourself are twofold. First, does this make sense? Second, am I being persuasive? For some inspiration on this, I highly recommend the opening speech by Durham DA Jim Hardin on 1 July 2003 in the Michael Peterson case. This speech was set as required reading for my cohort in Week 1 of the course and is a great example of how to compel your audience by appealing to logic and human tendency. Remember to also consult your textbooks at this stage, as they are a great resource for the overarching principles of drafting a good factual theory.
An important thing to remember at this stage is to use subheadings! For clarity of expression and for the benefit of the marker, make sure you divide up your theory with subheadings where they are important (e.g., change of theme, the span of dates).
Where there is a gap in the evidence brief, and you do not know how to fill it, try to think about what you must prove and how likely the thing you’re trying to prove is. Do not just skip over potentially challenging pieces of evidence. Instead, explain how they fit into your narrative and why your explanation is the most compelling.
2 The Proof
It is possible for the interim assignment to require you to prove a case or part thereof.
At this stage, you are looking to take your factual theory and prove that it happened by referencing the brief. You are ultimately creating chains of logic to show that your assertions can be backed by things in the brief. You can create these chains using graphs, prose, or a combination of both. There is no great advantage to any given approach beyond what works best for you, but consult with your teacher to see whether they have a preference. I opted for graphs and embedded prose paragraphs as needed to explain more complex chains. For every chain, I would refer to a piece of evidence and cite the page the evidence was from in the footnote.
The thing to keep in mind here is to consistently check whether your claims flow in a logical chain. Make sure you set out all the necessary and important chains of reasoning. If there is an important defence argument that needs rebutting, it can just be expressed as a prosecution chain of reasoning. Assumptions do not have to be spelled out — they can be implicit in the way you structure your chains of reasoning.
The Final Exam and Tips
In the exam, you will be expected to apply the Evidence Act, all of the Jury Directions Act, and set provisions of the Crimes Act to a fresh evidence brief and a proof.
There are a few academic integrity measures that are worth noting. First, upon the release of the evidence brief, Collaboration Code 1 applies, which means you must not discuss the brief and/or the exam content. You may put in enquiries through the MLS Academic Support Office (‘ASO’). Thus, if you have any substantive questions, Week 12 will be your last chance to consult your teacher. Second, AI Code 2 applies, which means you are allowed to use AI tools to assist with your preparation or conduct background research. However, you must not type in answers generated by AI. Third, the exam is closed-book, which means you can only access your laptop in the venue, in conjunction with materials provided in the exam itself.
In relation to your task in the exam, you want to determine whether the evidence used in the proof is admissible. This requires applying the laws of evidence to the bits of evidence in the brief. There is no great secret to this exercise. If a statutory provision is ambiguous, focus on identifying how your advice would change for each possible meaning — in this exam, you do not have to resolve which meaning is correct. The exam requires knowing the law and understanding how it works, as well as any alternative proof chains if one chain is barred or affected by the Evidence Act, the Jury Directions Act, or the Crimes Act, so you do need to be able to read and construct the proof. You will have access to legislative provisions during your closed-book exam. However, you’ll want to have prepared well enough in advance that you can quickly focus on what to review. Listen closely to what your teachers say in sessions and how they frame certain rules, and note where there is uncertainty. Make sure that you are making the examiner’s job easier by referencing which parts of the evidence you are analysing.
Some Useful Things to Remember
- Consider the practicality of opening the electronic legislation and typing at the same time, and think about whether you might prefer to memorise the essence of the provisions to avoid spending too much time on reading the provisions and navigating between windows.
- Read the ideal exam response after reading or attempting your own response, as well as any of the feedback given for past exams (this is a great way to pick up common mistakes made in past years).
- Read the sample analysis in the Appendix of Andrew Palmer, Proof: How to Analyse Evidence in Preparation for Trial (Thomson Reuters, 4th ed, 2021) 211–64.
- Refer to people by their last name or first name, not abbreviations.
- Use informative, consistent headings.
- Focus more on complex and contentious issues and avoid overexplaining straightforward issues.
- Remember that everyone else is facing the same situation, and you will be assessed against your cohort.
I hope these tips are helpful, and good luck with the very first closed-book Evidence exam!
This post was written by Jenny, EAGLE facilitator, and reviewed and approved by Professor jeremy Gans, Evidence and Proof subject coordinator
Sincere thanks to both on behalf of the LASC and our students.
The Evidence Exam: Strategies for Success
In 2026, the Evidence and Proof teaching team changed this subject’s assessment structure. What was previously assessed in a 3-day take-home final exam has now been broken down into two parts, namely the interim assessment and a final exam.
In this post, I will aim to provide some clarity on these assessment tasks and offer some tips on how to prepare well for the exam. It will be reaffirmed that the approach to study will remain the same for each task. In addition to the suggestions in this article, it is also important to consult the Guide to Academic Success for additional advice and guidance.
The Previous Assessment and the Changes
The Evidence Exam used to be a weekend-long assessment. It required past students to (1) build a factual case theory based on the evidence in the brief (‘the factual theory’); (2) describe how the evidence can rationally be used to prove the case (‘the proof’); and (3) evaluate the impact of the law of evidence on the proof (‘the law’).
The current assessment structure divides these three tasks between the interim assignment and the final exam. The interim assignment, called a ‘fact analysis’, includes the (1) factual theory and may include a component of (2) the proof, whereas the final exam concerns (3) the law.
The final exam is in a different format compared to past years. First, the final exam will be based on a different evidence brief, as opposed to the one used for the interim. Second, this evidence brief will be released on the last day of Week 12. Third, the exam problem will provide you with a complete proof, upon which you will need to apply the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (‘Evidence Act’), all of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) (‘Jury Directions Act’) and set provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Crimes Act’). Fourth, the exam will be closed-book.
The Interim Assessment and Tips
The interim assessment includes the factual theory and may include a component of the proof.
1 The Factual Theory
The factual theory is a creative writing exercise. You are a storyteller, trying to compel your reader to buy what you’re selling — a case theory. As you go through, the questions you should be asking yourself are twofold. First, does this make sense? Second, am I being persuasive? For some inspiration on this, I highly recommend the opening speech by Durham DA Jim Hardin on 1 July 2003 in the Michael Peterson case. This speech was set as required reading for my cohort in Week 1 of the course and is a great example of how to compel your audience by appealing to logic and human tendency. Remember to also consult your textbooks at this stage, as they are a great resource for the overarching principles of drafting a good factual theory.
An important thing to remember at this stage is to use subheadings! For clarity of expression and for the benefit of the marker, make sure you divide up your theory with subheadings where they are important (e.g., change of theme, the span of dates).
Where there is a gap in the evidence brief, and you do not know how to fill it, try to think about what you must prove and how likely the thing you’re trying to prove is. Do not just skip over potentially challenging pieces of evidence. Instead, explain how they fit into your narrative and why your explanation is the most compelling.
2 The Proof
It is possible for the interim assignment to require you to prove a case or part thereof.
At this stage, you are looking to take your factual theory and prove that it happened by referencing the brief. You are ultimately creating chains of logic to show that your assertions can be backed by things in the brief. You can create these chains using graphs, prose, or a combination of both. There is no great advantage to any given approach beyond what works best for you, but consult with your teacher to see whether they have a preference. I opted for graphs and embedded prose paragraphs as needed to explain more complex chains. For every chain, I would refer to a piece of evidence and cite the page the evidence was from in the footnote.
The thing to keep in mind here is to consistently check whether your claims flow in a logical chain. Make sure you set out all the necessary and important chains of reasoning. If there is an important defence argument that needs rebutting, it can just be expressed as a prosecution chain of reasoning. Assumptions do not have to be spelled out — they can be implicit in the way you structure your chains of reasoning.
The Final Exam and Tips
In the exam, you will be expected to apply the Evidence Act, all of the Jury Directions Act, and set provisions of the Crimes Act to a fresh evidence brief and a proof.
There are a few academic integrity measures that are worth noting. First, upon the release of the evidence brief, Collaboration Code 1 applies, which means you must not discuss the brief and/or the exam content. You may put in enquiries through the MLS Academic Support Office (‘ASO’). Thus, if you have any substantive questions, Week 12 will be your last chance to consult your teacher. Second, AI Code 2 applies, which means you are allowed to use AI tools to assist with your preparation or conduct background research. However, you must not type in answers generated by AI. Third, the exam is closed-book, which means you can only access your laptop in the venue, in conjunction with materials provided in the exam itself.
In relation to your task in the exam, you want to determine whether the evidence used in the proof is admissible. This requires applying the laws of evidence to the bits of evidence in the brief. There is no great secret to this exercise. If a statutory provision is ambiguous, focus on identifying how your advice would change for each possible meaning — in this exam, you do not have to resolve which meaning is correct. The exam requires knowing the law and understanding how it works, as well as any alternative proof chains if one chain is barred or affected by the Evidence Act, the Jury Directions Act, or the Crimes Act, so you do need to be able to read and construct the proof. You will have access to legislative provisions during your closed-book exam. However, you’ll want to have prepared well enough in advance that you can quickly focus on what to review. Listen closely to what your teachers say in sessions and how they frame certain rules, and note where there is uncertainty. Make sure that you are making the examiner’s job easier by referencing which parts of the evidence you are analysing.
Some Useful Things to Remember
I hope these tips are helpful, and good luck with the very first closed-book Evidence exam!