English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In 1843 the imperial parliament passed the Colonial Evidence Act.1 Its purpose was to allow colonial legislatures to pass acts or ordinances to allow their indigenous inhabitants to give unsworn testimony before the courts. Unsworn testimony was testimony given by those who were not able to take the oath. At common law the rule was that evidence could only be given on oath, rendering those devoid of religious belief incompetent to testify. In British colonies, therefore, this rule resulted in most of the indigenous inhabitants being unable to give evidence before English courts. This was particularly problematic in the Australian colonies. The imperial Act of 1843 was the outcome of various ineffectual attempts to allow for such evidence by way of local act or ordinance, particularly in New South Wales and, more latterly, Western Australia. While some attention has been paid to the politics and processes of law reform concerning unsworn testimony in empire, and the ways in which such reforms formed part of broader disputes about the shape of colonial governments,2 these discussions have almost entirely revolved around the Australian colonies.3 New Zealand has received comparatively little attention. To the extent to which New Zealand has been considered, it has been in the context of the overall matrix of imperial reform and therefore much of the particular politics and processes of reform within New Zealand still await consideration.4 Although New Zealand promptly took advantage of the imperial legislation and passed a local Ordinance under its auspices, the history of the interaction between Māori and the courts, and their ability to testify before them, prior to the passing of that Ordinance diverges significantly from that of the Australian colonies. The particular history of New Zealand in respect of unsworn testimony illustrates

‘Destitute of the knowledge of God’: Māori Testimony Before the New Zealand Courts in the Early Crown Colony Period