In disciplinary proceedings before VCAT, the Jones v Dunkel principle does not directly apply because the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence. Where a party makes a witness available for cross-examination but does not call the witness to give substantive evidence, no adverse inference arises from the failure to call the witness, particularly where the opposing party declines the opportunity to cross-examine. Alternative hypotheses as to the identity of the person who physically performed a prohibited act do not constitute inconsistency where the critical allegation is that the act was done on the respondent's authority.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.