Regina v Kim Loan Nguyen [2006] NSWDC 25

Regina v Kim Loan Nguyen [2006] NSWDC 25

Mr Drury was qualified by training, study and experience under s.79 of the Evidence Act 1995 to give expert evidence about drug codes in telephone intercepts, but his opinions in this case were formed by reference to a much broader and more prejudicial body of material than the Crown proposed to prove, including material about Duncan Lam, other heroin dealings, photographs of seized heroin, hearsay from police, and extensive transcripts outside the present case. In a criminal jury trial, the jury must be given all relevant facts and assumptions on which the expert based his opinion so it can evaluate the opinion. The Crown could call Mr Drury only if it led from him in chief all facts and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Supplying Heroin / Voir Dire/admissibility Ruling on Expert Evidence During Jury Trial
Outcome
The Crown was entitled to call Mr Michael Drury as an expert witness about drug codes in telephone intercepts only if it led all facts and assumptions on which he based his opinions and proved any assumed facts; if the Crown was not prepared or willing to do so, the judge would not permit Mr Drury to give evidence.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'police Expert Evidence' 'telephone Intercepts' 'drug Code Words' 'heroin Supply']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'police Expert Evidence' 'telephone Intercepts' 'drug Code Words' 'heroin Supply']

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Supplying Heroin / Voir Dire/admissibility Ruling on Expert Evidence During Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Michael Drury could give expert opinion evidence about coded references to heroin in telephone intercepts.' 'Whether expert opinion evidence formed on facts and assumptions beyond the Crown case could be admitted where the Crown did not intend to prove those facts before the jury.' 'Whether, in a criminal jury trial, the factual and assumption basis for expert opinion evidence must be disclosed and proved so the jury can evaluate the opinion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Drury was qualified by training, study and experience under s.79 of the Evidence Act 1995 to give expert evidence about drug codes in telephone intercepts, but his opinions in this case were formed by reference to a much broader and more prejudicial body of material than the Crown proposed to prove, including material about Duncan Lam, other heroin dealings, photographs of seized heroin, hearsay from police, and extensive transcripts outside the present case. In a criminal jury trial, the jury must be given all relevant facts and assumptions on which the expert based his opinion so it can evaluate the opinion. The Crown could call Mr Drury only if it led from him in chief all facts and...

Court Disposition

The Crown was entitled to call Mr Michael Drury as an expert witness about drug codes in telephone intercepts only if it led all facts and assumptions on which he based his opinions and proved any assumed facts; if the Crown was not prepared or willing to do so, the judge would not permit Mr Drury to give evidence.

Orders

  • ['The Crown may call Mr Michael Drury as an expert witness only on the stated condition that all facts and assumptions underlying his opinions are led and any assumed facts are proved.' 'If the Crown is not prepared or willing to meet that condition, Mr Drury will not be permitted to give evidence.']