R v Gaetano VITALE; R v Angelo VITALE; R v Mark SCALIA [2015] NSWDC 424

R v Gaetano VITALE; R v Angelo VITALE; R v Mark SCALIA [2015] NSWDC 424

Ms Ellam's opinion as to the likely yield of methylamphetamine based on applying a 100:1 waste-to-yield ratio to the waste products found at the premises is not admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because it is not sufficiently based on her training, study, or experience so as to confer specialised knowledge; there is inadequate foundation in scientific literature or proven facts for applying the ratio in this case, so the opinion is excluded. Reliability of the method is not determinative under s 79, and would not be grounds for exclusion under ss 135/137 given binding NSW authority.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Accused: Gaetano Vitale; Accused: Angelo Vitale; Accused: Mark Scalia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence at Trial
Outcome
Objection to admissibility of expert evidence upheld; application to admit expert evidence regarding quantity based on 100:1 ratio refused.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Drug Offences, Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 79, Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 135, 137, Specialised Knowledge
Criminal Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Drug Offences Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 79 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 135, 137 Specialised Knowledge

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

Gaetano Vitale

Accused

Angelo Vitale

Accused

Mark Scalia

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Ellam's expert opinion evidence as to quantity of drugs based on a 100:1 waste-to-yield ratio is admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether reliability is relevant to admissibility of expert opinion evidence under s 79
  3. 3 Whether the opinion should be excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Ellam's opinion as to the likely yield of methylamphetamine based on applying a 100:1 waste-to-yield ratio to the waste products found at the premises is not admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because it is not sufficiently based on her training, study, or experience so as to confer specialised knowledge; there is inadequate foundation in scientific literature or proven facts for applying the ratio in this case, so the opinion is excluded. Reliability of the method is not determinative under s 79, and would not be grounds for exclusion under ss 135/137 given binding NSW authority.

Court Disposition

Objection to admissibility of expert evidence upheld; application to admit expert evidence regarding quantity based on 100:1 ratio refused.

Orders

  • Opinion evidence of Ms Ellam estimating a minimum of 2.7kg of methylamphetamine based on a 100:1 waste-to-yield ratio is excluded and not admissible.
  • The remainder of Ms Ellam's evidence is admissible.