R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2019] NSWSC 204

R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2019] NSWSC 204

The application to call Detective Moon was rejected because the expert report was served late, was lengthy and complex, altered or expanded the scientific basis of the Crown's case, and the accused had no reasonable opportunity to consider it or respond. Admitting it would cause unfair prejudice to the accused.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Mitchell James Bentley; Accused: Jack Davies; Accused: William Patrick Thomas; Accused: Jamie Michael Tilley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Application to call Detective Moon rejected
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Expert Reports, Unfair Prejudice, Late Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Mitchell James Bentley

Accused

Jack Davies

Accused

William Patrick Thomas

Accused

Jamie Michael Tilley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling During Trial

  1. 1 Whether the Crown should be permitted to rely upon an expert report served late
  2. 2 Whether receipt of the expert report would cause unfair prejudice to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The application to call Detective Moon was rejected because the expert report was served late, was lengthy and complex, altered or expanded the scientific basis of the Crown's case, and the accused had no reasonable opportunity to consider it or respond. Admitting it would cause unfair prejudice to the accused.

Court Disposition

Application to call Detective Moon rejected

Orders

  • Crown not permitted to rely upon Detective Moon's expert report
  • Crown's application to call Detective Moon rejected