Questions conveying imputations against a witness require reasonable grounds for believing the allegation is well-founded. Speculative or random accusations are not proper. Such grounds may arise from professional instructions or from court information supported by satisfactory reasons. Where nothing is known about a witness, an accusation made at random lacks a proper basis; however, unsatisfactory answers about the witness's lifestyle and means of living may justify further questioning.

The Court controls irrelevant character-based questions addressed to witnesses where they may affect credibility. It may decide whether a witness must answer and may warn that an answer is not required. Questions are proper only when the imputation would seriously affect credibility; they are improper when remote, of slight relevance, or disproportionate to the importance of the evidence. A refusal to answer may permit an inference that the answer would be unfavourable.

Section 147 governs when a witness is to be compelled to answer a question in examination. Where a question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions applicable under section 132 apply to that question for purposes of compulsion. The statutory scheme links relevance to the application of the section 132 provisions.

Cross-examination may test a witness's veracity, establish identity and position in life, or impeach credit by affecting character, even if answers may incriminate the witness or expose the witness to a penalty or forfeiture. Where consent is in issue in specified sexual-offence prosecutions or attempts, the victim's general immoral character or previous sexual experience cannot be used to prove consent or the quality of consent.

Cross-examination on relevant prior written statements may proceed without first showing or proving the writing. If the writing is intended to contradict the witness, the witness must first be confronted with the specific passages proposed for contradiction before the writing can be proved.

Evidence as to matters in writing restricts oral testimony concerning contracts, grants, dispositions of property, or document contents where production is required. An adverse party may object until the document is produced or entitlement to secondary evidence is established. Statements by others about document contents may nevertheless be proved orally when independently relevant, including to demonstrate motive.

Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination under the evidentiary rules governing examination of witnesses. This permission applies at the cross-examination stage and permits questions in leading form to be put to a witness during that stage. The rule identifies cross-examination as the point in witness examination at which leading questions are permissible.

Leading questions in examination-in-chief and re-examination cannot be asked if the adverse party objects, unless the Court permits them. The Court must allow such questions for introductory or undisputed matters, and for matters it considers already sufficiently proved. The restriction governs witness examination at those stages, subject to stated exceptions.

Leading questions are questions that suggest the answer which the person putting them wishes or expects to receive from a witness. Their defining feature is the inclusion of an indicated or desired answer in the wording of the question. During examination of witnesses, classification as a leading question depends on whether the question suggests the response sought by the person asking it, instead of leaving the witness to provide an unrestricted answer.

Character witnesses may be cross-examined and re-examined during the examination of witnesses. Their evidence may be tested by the opposing party and clarified or explained through re-examination.

Mere production of a document by a summoned person does not confer witness status. Cross-examination is permissible only after that person is called as a witness, distinguishing document production from testimonial participation in examination of witnesses.

Witness examination proceeds through examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination may address matters beyond the witness's examination-in-chief. Re-examination is directed to explaining matters raised in cross-examination. If new matter is introduced with the court's permission during re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine on that matter.

Examination-in-chief is conducted by the party calling a witness, while cross-examination is conducted by the adverse party. Re-examination is conducted by the party who called the witness after cross-examination. These classifications distinguish the parties' respective roles in witness examination and identify re-examination as subsequent to cross-examination in the evidentiary process.

Admissibility of evidence is determined by whether a proposed fact, if proved, would be relevant; the party offering it may be required to explain that relevance. Where admissibility depends on proof of another fact, the foundational fact must generally be established first, unless an accepted undertaking permits later proof. Where relevance depends on another alleged fact, the Judge may determine the order of proof, including for proof of death, loss of an original, property identity, and intermediate connecting facts.

Order of production and examination of witnesses is governed by the law and prevailing practice applicable to civil and criminal procedure. Where no such procedural law or practice regulates the sequence, the Court has discretion to determine the order in which witnesses are produced and examined.

Section 134 removes any fixed numerical requirement for witness testimony in proving a fact. No prescribed minimum number of witnesses is mandatory in any case, and proof may be established without a compulsory numerical threshold for witness evidence.

An accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person. A conviction founded solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is not illegal merely because independent corroboration is absent. The provision recognises the evidentiary competence of accomplices and does not impose corroboration as a condition of a legally valid conviction.

Section 132 requires a witness to answer relevant questions in civil or criminal proceedings even where an answer may incriminate the witness or expose the witness to a penalty or forfeiture. A compelled answer cannot subject the witness to arrest or prosecution, nor may it be proved against the witness in criminal proceedings, except in a prosecution for giving false evidence through that answer.

Section 131 prevents compelled production of documents or electronic records held by one person when another person could lawfully refuse their production if they held or controlled them. Production may be compelled only where the person entitled to refuse consents, preserving the underlying protection despite the material being in another person's possession or control.

Section 130 protects a non-party witness from compulsory production of title deeds, documents evidencing property held as pledgee or mortgagee, and documents that may tend to incriminate the witness. Production may be compelled only where the witness has agreed in writing with the person seeking production, or a person through whom that person claims, to produce them.