R v So (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1113

R v So (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1113

The Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Cala's opinion estimating the quantity of blood that resulted in the carpet staining was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge derived from his experience. Published studies, the 1994 blood volume experiment abstract, and the evidence of Dr Reynolds and Professor Duflou showed that familiarity with blood as a forensic pathologist did not itself provide a reliable capacity to estimate blood volume, especially where dried stains on absorbent carpet may have been affected by cleaning or other fluids. Dr Cala also did not explain the pathway by which his experience led to an estimate of at least one litre or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial; Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Pre Trial Ruling Pursuant to S 192 a of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) on a Voir Dire in a Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Pre-trial admissibility ruling made; some proposed Crown expert evidence admitted and some excluded.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge Under S 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'opinion Rule' 'blood Volume Estimation' 'forensic Pathology Evidence' 'crime Scene Investigation Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge Under S 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'opinion Rule' 'blood Volume Estimation' 'forensic Pathology Evidence' 'crime Scene Investigation Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']

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 Murder Trial; Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Pre Trial Ruling Pursuant to S 192 a of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) on a Voir Dire in a Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Cala's proposed opinion concerning the volume of blood that produced stains on carpet in Mr Dickie's bedroom was admissible as expert opinion evidence under s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether Dr Cala's proposed opinion concerning the volume of blood loss that may be fatal in the absence of medical care was admissible." "Whether Senior Sergeant Gane's proposed opinion that a significant blood shedding event occurred in Mr Dickie's bedroom, and his reasoning for that opinion, was admissible." 'Whether the stained carpet, images of the carpet and results of forensic procedures conducted on it were admissible.' 'Whether the probative value of the challenged evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Cala's opinion estimating the quantity of blood that resulted in the carpet staining was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge derived from his experience. Published studies, the 1994 blood volume experiment abstract, and the evidence of Dr Reynolds and Professor Duflou showed that familiarity with blood as a forensic pathologist did not itself provide a reliable capacity to estimate blood volume, especially where dried stains on absorbent carpet may have been affected by cleaning or other fluids. Dr Cala also did not explain the pathway by which his experience led to an estimate of at least one litre or...

Court Disposition

Pre-trial admissibility ruling made; some proposed Crown expert evidence admitted and some excluded.

Orders

  • ["The proposed evidence of Dr Cala concerning the volume of blood that produced stains on carpet in Mr Dickie's bedroom is inadmissible." 'The proposed evidence of Dr Cala concerning the volume of blood loss that may be fatal in the absence of medical care is admissible.' "The proposed evidence of Senior Sergeant...