Wotton v State of Queensland (No 4) [2015] FCA 1075

Wotton v State of Queensland (No 4) [2015] FCA 1075

The application to adduce further expert evidence from Dr Eades is refused because such evidence on the specific credibility of selected witnesses is not the purpose of s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), may confuse the trier of fact, risks compromising expert independence, is selectively applied, and does not substantially affect credibility assessment as required. General expert opinion already before the Court is sufficient.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Further Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['admission of Expert Evidence' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'application of Evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 108 C']
['evidence Law'] ['admission of Expert Evidence' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'application of Evidence Act 1995 (cth) S 108 C']

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

Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Adduce Further Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether additional expert evidence may be adduced regarding the credibility of Aboriginal witnesses under s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Whether the expert evidence proposed would substantially affect assessment of credibility within the meaning of the Act' 'Whether selective application of expert opinion to some witnesses is appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adduce further expert evidence from Dr Eades is refused because such evidence on the specific credibility of selected witnesses is not the purpose of s 108C of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), may confuse the trier of fact, risks compromising expert independence, is selectively applied, and does not substantially affect credibility assessment as required. General expert opinion already before the Court is sufficient.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ["The applicants' application to adduce further expert evidence from Dr Diana Eades in relation to the four witnesses set out in paragraph four of the affidavit of Mr Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz dated 28 September 2015 is refused."]