Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 4) [2004] FCA 1539

Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 4) [2004] FCA 1539

Portions of Professor Sutton's report that are supported by clear reasoning based on specialised anthropological knowledge are admissible, subject to s 136 limitations on use of hearsay; sections relying on source material not in evidence, advocating for primary facts, or purporting to evaluate the credibility of witnesses are inadmissible.

Parties
Applicants: Johnny Jango and Others; First Respondent: Northern Territory of Australia; Second Respondent: GPT Management Limited; Third Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Compensation Claim Under Native Title Act / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Anthropological Report
Outcome
Rulings on individual objections to expert report; partial admission and partial rejection of report.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Relevance, Hearsay, Expert Anthropological Reports, Indigenous Customary Law
Evidence Native Title Admissibility of Expert Evidence Relevance Hearsay Expert Anthropological Reports Indigenous Customary Law

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnny Jango and Others

Applicants

Northern Territory of Australia

First Respondent

GPT Management Limited

Second Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compensation Claim Under Native Title Act / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Anthropological Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disconformity between expert report and evidence of indigenous witnesses should result in report being rejected as irrelevant
  2. 2 Whether opinions based on source data not in evidence are admissible
  3. 3 Whether general observations on cross-cultural communication by an expert anthropologist are admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Portions of Professor Sutton's report that are supported by clear reasoning based on specialised anthropological knowledge are admissible, subject to s 136 limitations on use of hearsay; sections relying on source material not in evidence, advocating for primary facts, or purporting to evaluate the credibility of witnesses are inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Rulings on individual objections to expert report; partial admission and partial rejection of report.

Orders

  • Professor Sutton's report is admitted in part, subject to s 136 of the Evidence Act limiting use of hearsay material to disclosing the basis for opinions.
  • Sections relying on source data not in evidence and on evaluation of witness testimony are rejected.