All Practice Exams
100+ Free Queensland Bar Exam: Evidence Practice Questions
Queensland Bar Examination - Evidence Paper practice questions are available now; exam metadata is being verified.
✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
Not published Pass Rate
100+ Questions
100% Free
Loading questions...
Same family resources
Explore More Australia Bar & Legal Admission Exams
Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.
2026 Statistics
Key Facts: Queensland Bar Exam: Evidence Exam
115 min
Evidence Paper Time Limit
Bar Association of Queensland
65
Pass Mark Per Part
Bar Association of Queensland
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
Governing Law (not the uniform Evidence Act)
Bar Association of Queensland - Appendix A reading list
Short answer
Problem-Based Scenario Format (closed book)
Bar Association of Queensland
AUD 600
Qld Bar Exam Fee (all three papers, incl. GST)
Bar Association of Queensland (2026)
100+
Practice Questions Here
OpenExamPrep question bank
The Queensland Bar Exam Evidence paper is one of three parts of the Bar Association of Queensland's bar examination, sat in 115 minutes as a closed-book, short-answer exam in Brisbane via ExamSoft. Unlike the uniform-evidence states, Queensland applies the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) plus the common law of evidence, so candidates must master statutory provisions and case law rather than the uniform Evidence Act. The paper tests relevance and admissibility, burden and standard of proof (Woolmington, Briginshaw), the hearsay rule and exceptions (including business records under ss 92-102 and admissions/confessions), opinion and expert evidence (the Makita basis rule), character, credit and similar-fact evidence (Pfennig), the rule in Browne v Dunn, privilege (Esso), and the discretions to exclude (Christie, Bunning v Cross). The pass mark is 65 for the part. The BAQ does not publish pass rates, past papers or marking rubrics, so preparation is built from the prescribed Appendix A reading list. All three parts must be passed within three successive sittings (18 months) before completing the Bar Practice Course.
Sample Queensland Bar Exam: Evidence Practice Questions
Try these sample questions to test your Queensland Bar Exam: Evidence exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.
1At a trial in the District Court of Queensland, counsel seeks to tender a photograph that has no connection to any fact in issue but which the witness found interesting. On what basis is the photograph inadmissible?
A.It is opinion evidence that does not satisfy the basis rule in Makita v Sprowles.
B.It is hearsay, because a photograph is a record made out of court.
C.It is irrelevant, because it does not rationally bear upon the probability of a fact in issue and so fails the threshold common-law test of relevance.
D.It is privileged real evidence and must be excluded under the Christie discretion.
Explanation: At common law, which governs relevance in Queensland, evidence is admissible only if it is relevant — that is, if it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue (Goldsmith v Sandilands; Smith v The Queen). Irrelevant evidence is simply inadmissible.
2In a Queensland criminal trial, what is the standard and incidence of the burden of proof as stated in Woolmington v DPP?
A.The accused must prove innocence on the balance of probabilities once a prima facie case is made out.
B.The prosecution must prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, subject to the defence of insanity and statutory exceptions.
C.The prosecution bears only an evidential burden, which shifts to the accused once raised.
D.Both parties bear a persuasive burden to the standard of the balance of probabilities.
Explanation: Woolmington v DPP establishes the 'golden thread' — the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The only true exceptions are the common-law defence of insanity and express or implied statutory reversals of onus.
3A plaintiff in a Queensland civil proceeding alleges the defendant committed fraud. Applying Briginshaw v Briginshaw, how does the seriousness of the allegation affect the standard of proof?
A.It raises the standard of proof to beyond reasonable doubt because fraud is quasi-criminal.
B.The standard remains the balance of probabilities, but the gravity of the allegation requires that the tribunal feel an actual persuasion and weigh the evidence accordingly.
C.It reverses the onus so that the defendant must disprove the fraud.
D.It requires corroboration before the allegation can be made out.
Explanation: Briginshaw v Briginshaw holds that the civil standard remains the balance of probabilities, but the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact on the balance of probabilities varies with the gravity of the fact alleged. The tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of the fact's existence.
4A witness testifies that a bystander shouted 'the blue car ran the red light!' immediately as the collision occurred. Counsel objects that this is hearsay. On what common-law basis might the statement nevertheless be admitted to prove the blue car ran the light?
A.As a business record under s 92 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).
B.Under the dying declaration exception, since the bystander spoke at the scene.
C.As an admission against interest by the bystander.
D.As part of the res gestae, being a spontaneous statement made under the pressure of a startling event so as to exclude concoction.
Explanation: The res gestae (spontaneous statement) exception, recognised at common law in Queensland and in Ratten v The Queen, admits a contemporaneous statement made under the stress of a startling event where the possibility of concoction or distortion can be excluded.
5In a Queensland civil trial, counsel seeks to tender a company invoice to prove the price charged. The invoice was generated by the company's accounting system in the ordinary course of business. Which provision most directly governs its admissibility as documentary hearsay?
A.Section 92 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), governing admissibility of documentary evidence as to facts in issue.
B.Section 79 of the uniform Evidence Act.
C.Section 59 of the uniform Evidence Act.
D.The voir dire procedure under s 590AA of the Criminal Code.
Explanation: Section 92 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) makes a statement in a document admissible as evidence of a fact where the document is or forms part of a record made in the course of a business and the maker had personal knowledge. Queensland does not apply the uniform Evidence Act.
6An expert engineer gives evidence in a Queensland trial about the cause of a structural failure. The opposing counsel objects that the expert has not proved the factual assumptions underpinning the opinion. Which principle, articulated by Heydon JA, governs the admissibility of the opinion?
A.The opinion is admissible regardless of its factual basis because the expert is qualified.
B.Expert opinion is automatically inadmissible as hearsay unless the expert observed the facts personally.
C.The reasoning and factual assumptions on which the opinion is based must be exposed so the court can assess the opinion's value — the basis rule explained in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles.
D.The opinion must be corroborated by a second expert before it can be received.
Explanation: In Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles, Heydon JA set out the requirements for admissible expert opinion: the expert must be qualified, the opinion must be wholly or substantially based on that expertise, and the factual assumptions must be stated and proved so the court can evaluate the opinion.
7In a Queensland criminal trial, the Crown seeks to lead evidence that the accused committed similar offences against other complainants to prove the charged offence. Which test governs the admissibility of this propensity evidence at common law?
A.It is admissible only if its probative force is such that there is no rational view of the evidence consistent with the innocence of the accused — the test in Pfennig v The Queen.
B.It is admissible if relevant, subject only to s 137 balancing of probative value against prejudice.
C.It is admissible whenever the accused has put their character in issue.
D.It is inadmissible in all circumstances as forbidden propensity reasoning.
Explanation: Pfennig v The Queen sets the common-law admissibility test for propensity or similar fact evidence, applied in Queensland: such evidence is admissible only where its probative value is so high that, taken with the other evidence, there is no reasonable view consistent with innocence (affirmed in Phillips v The Queen).
8During cross-examination, counsel intends to call evidence later to contradict the witness's account, but does not put that contradictory version to the witness. What rule has counsel breached?
A.The rule in Jones v Dunkel.
B.The rule against narrative.
C.The rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.
D.The rule in Browne v Dunn, which requires that a witness be given the opportunity to comment on evidence that contradicts their testimony or impugns their credit.
Explanation: The rule in Browne v Dunn requires that, where a party intends to contradict a witness or suggest the witness is not to be believed, the contradictory matter must be put to the witness in cross-examination so they may respond. Failure may lead to comment, recall, or limits on the later evidence.
9A client sends an email to their solicitor seeking legal advice about a contract dispute. The opposing party seeks production of the email. On what basis can the client resist production?
A.Public interest immunity, because the advice concerns government policy.
B.The without prejudice privilege attaching to settlement negotiations.
C.Privilege against self-incrimination.
D.Client legal privilege (legal professional privilege), because the email is a confidential communication for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.
Explanation: Legal professional (client legal) privilege protects confidential communications between a client and lawyer made for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice (Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, adopting the dominant purpose test). The email plainly qualifies.
10The High Court in Esso Australia Resources Ltd v FCT settled which test for legal professional privilege at common law in Australia?
A.The sole purpose test from Grant v Downs.
B.The dominant purpose test, replacing the former sole purpose test.
C.A test of mere relevance to litigation.
D.The substantial purpose test.
Explanation: In Esso Australia Resources Ltd v FCT, the High Court adopted the dominant purpose test for legal professional privilege at common law, departing from the earlier sole purpose test in Grant v Downs and aligning the common law with the uniform Evidence Acts.
About the Queensland Bar Exam: Evidence Practice Questions
Verified exam format metadata for Queensland Bar Examination - Evidence Paper is pending. The practice questions above remain available while official exam length, timing, passing score, fee, and administrator details are reviewed.