R v Singh (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 213

R v Singh (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 213

Professor Maitz's opinion that the accused was not attempting or genuinely attempting to pat out the flames was inadmissible because it was not relevant in circumstances where the eyewitness evidence of patting had not been challenged so as to warrant rebuttal evidence, and because the opinion was not shown to be wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge; it was based only on the absence of more serious burns in photographs and did not establish how serious the burns had to be to support a conclusion about genuineness, which was a matter for the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure Application to Exclude Expert Opinion Evidence in a Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial
Outcome
Expert opinion evidence excluded in part; the evidence that the accused was not attempting to pat out the fire was held inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 79' 'relevance' 'opinion Rule' 'exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 79' 'relevance' 'opinion Rule' 'exclusion of Evidence']

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 Procedure Application to Exclude Expert Opinion Evidence in a Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Professor Maitz's opinion that the accused was not genuinely attempting to pat out the fire was relevant." "Whether Professor Maitz's opinion was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge within s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the factual basis for the opinion was sufficient to make the evidence admissible.']

Ratio Decidendi

Professor Maitz's opinion that the accused was not attempting or genuinely attempting to pat out the flames was inadmissible because it was not relevant in circumstances where the eyewitness evidence of patting had not been challenged so as to warrant rebuttal evidence, and because the opinion was not shown to be wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge; it was based only on the absence of more serious burns in photographs and did not establish how serious the burns had to be to support a conclusion about genuineness, which was a matter for the jury.

Court Disposition

Expert opinion evidence excluded in part; the evidence that the accused was not attempting to pat out the fire was held inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The expert opinion evidence that the accused was not attempting to pat out the fire is inadmissible.']