Review of Effectiveness of Evidence Act 2008 In many Australian jurisdiction, the law of evidence was developed by a number of case law framed to meet particular evidential problems in the common law system, and “The treatment of the rules of evidence by courts and commentators gives the appearance of a miscellaneous collection of rules developed case by case without any structure”1There are five jurisdictions has adopted the Uniform Evidence since the Australian Reform Commission recommend several changes to evidence law in a report in 1987, and Victoria has most recently adopted the Act.2 Although the Act deals with most area of evidence, the law of evidence is still a combination of statute and common law together with rules of court.3 It means that the Act is not a complete code, and some rules of common law could still be used to interpret the provisions of the Act if they are not inconsistent with the provisions. In Australia, under both common law or the Uniform Evidence Act (the Act), there are a number of rules and discretions that require or permit magistrates and judges to exclude both confessional as well as real evidence, the latter referring to tangible evidence such as a murder weapon, the body of a deceasedperson,DNAsamplesandthelike.4 Therulesofadmissibilityapplyateachstageof a witness‟s evidence. It contained in Chapter 3 of the Act. Under this chapter of the Act, evidence could be excluded by the application of an exclusionary rule, such as the rules against hearsay, opinion, similar fact evidence and credibility