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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Crown should be permitted to rely upon an expert report served late
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment