Introduction The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) was created to reform the law on evidence in the criminal and civil trials of Victorian courts as proposed by the Law Reforms Commission of Australia. 1 As much as the common law was intended to create reforms in the act of Evidence there are still loopholes that the Act of Evidence still excludes too much evidence during the court trials resulting to unfair decisions. 2 In this research paper, the study unveils the instances in which the Evidence Act 2008 does not support justices during court trials. The General Rule Inferences are inadmissible in courts because a witness can only speak facts that he or she perceived individually but not giving inferences drawn from the intended facts. Concerning the Evidence Act 2008, section (1) the evidence presented by the witness can be considered as valid by the court in the discussed exceptions to ensure that truth is availed during court proceedings for justice to be realised when making verdicts. 3 The first exception is that a qualified expert can give opinions concerning the given situation where the knowledge of an expert is required. Another option is that the non-expert can also be a witness in court to speak the facts if the matter calls for no expertise. 4 The general rule in the Evidence Act 2008 exists therefore due to two major reasons. The first reason brought forward is that any fact presented before the court by a non-expert is seen as relevant but his or her opinions are irrelevant since the person does not have any expertise that is called for by the matter. Secondly, the general rule is in place to hinder the witness from making the verdict. On the contrary, this does not yield in most cases because the tribunal of facts may be tempted to accept the opinions of the witness instead of drawing their own opinions as judges. 5 In balancing such exercise as stated in section (137) the judges might reach at a conclusion that any person can differ. The first exception where the experts give their own opinions draw a distinction between the expert who gives opinions and the witness who presents facts perceived personally. The facts in this case provide information that is necessary for the conclusion to be made without favour or discrimination. The opinion of experts should only be used if the evidence provided is valuable as well as reliable. This exception is therefore in practice to help the tribunal reach conclusions especially in cases where it lacks the knowledge of expertise in that particular field. The expertise opinion is therefore in this case essential since the tribunal will always require such opinions to draw the inferences. 6 This kind of rationale is therefore faulty because if the jury lacks the necessary expertise to handle the matter it will not evaluate the viability of the information presented to the court by the expert as either being true or false. This rationale is therefore unjustifiable and not clear on the qualities of the expert who should be allowed to be a witness during court proceedings. The jury may therefore agree to the opinions given by the expert hence the unjust ruling of the case especially if the expert has been hired by the accused. Such uncertainty in the court distorts the mea