R v Kelly; R v McLaughlin (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 1088

R v Kelly; R v McLaughlin (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 1088

Dr Furst's opinions were expressed only in terms of whether alcohol intoxication precluded each accused from having the capacity to form the specific intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. The fact in issue for the jury was whether the Crown could prove beyond reasonable doubt that each accused in fact formed that intention. Because the authorities distinguish capacity to form intent from actual formation of intent, the opinions about capacity were irrelevant and did not satisfy s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Crown Expert Evidence
Outcome
Evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'relevance' 'intoxication' 'specific Intent' 'murder']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'relevance' 'intoxication' 'specific Intent' 'murder']

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 Proceeding for Murder / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Crown Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown's expert forensic psychiatric opinions about each accused's capacity to form specific intent were relevant evidence under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether evidence of intoxication in a murder trial concerns capacity to form intent or whether the accused in fact formed the requisite intent.' 'Whether, if relevant, the expert opinions were admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) or should be excluded under s 135(a) or s 137.']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Furst's opinions were expressed only in terms of whether alcohol intoxication precluded each accused from having the capacity to form the specific intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. The fact in issue for the jury was whether the Crown could prove beyond reasonable doubt that each accused in fact formed that intention. Because the authorities distinguish capacity to form intent from actual formation of intent, the opinions about capacity were irrelevant and did not satisfy s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded.

Orders

  • ['The opinions of Dr Furst are not admissible and are excluded.']