R v Niguidula (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 476

R v Niguidula (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 476

Paragraph [24] of Professor Duflou's report was not admissible because the report did not explain how the table, statistics and his experience were weighed or applied to reach the conclusion that it was much more likely that the wound was inflicted by an assailant. The Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the opinion was substantially based on Professor Duflou's specialised knowledge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding on Indictment Charging Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Murder / Voir Dire / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Expert Evidence Before Trial
Outcome
Objection upheld.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'forensic Pathology Evidence' 'whether Stab Wound Was Self Inflicted or Inflicted by Another' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 76, 79(1), 137 and 142']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'expert Evidence'] ['admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'forensic Pathology Evidence' 'whether Stab Wound Was Self Inflicted or Inflicted by Another' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 76, 79(1), 137 and 142']

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 on Indictment Charging Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Murder / Voir Dire / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Expert Evidence Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether paragraph [24] of Professor Duflou's report was admissible as expert opinion evidence under s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the opinion that the stab wound was much more likely inflicted by an assailant than self-inflicted was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge.' 'Whether, if otherwise admissible, the evidence should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph [24] of Professor Duflou's report was not admissible because the report did not explain how the table, statistics and his experience were weighed or applied to reach the conclusion that it was much more likely that the wound was inflicted by an assailant. The Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the opinion was substantially based on Professor Duflou's specialised knowledge.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld.

Orders

  • ['Uphold the objection to paragraph [24] of the report of Professor Duflou of 13 April 2023.']