Which factors must be established for evidence to be admitted as related in a criminal trial according to Palmer v The Queen?

In a criminal trial, the admission of evidence is fundamentally tied to its relevance to the case and its credibility. The relevance of evidence refers to its ability to make a fact in issue more or less probable, aiding the court in understanding the circumstances surrounding the charges. Only evidence that contributes meaningfully to the case should be admitted to ensure that the trial remains fair and focused on pertinent issues.

Credibility relates to the trustworthiness of the evidence and the reliability of the sources from which it originates. The court examines whether the evidence can be confidently relied upon to support the claims being made in the trial. If evidence lacks credibility, it risks misleading the jury or detracting from the integrity of the judicial process.

Therefore, both relevance and credibility are crucial factors as established in Palmer v The Queen for evidence to be deemed admissible in a criminal trial. Other factors, such as emotional impact or public versus private interest, may play roles in how evidence is perceived but do not serve as fundamental criteria for admissibility in this context. Length and complexity, while relevant in some discussions of trial procedure, are not determinative factors for the admission of evidence itself.