R v Fortune (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 68

R v Fortune (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 68

Dr Shackel's report is inadmissible as expert opinion evidence because it fails to satisfy the requirements for admission, does not connect specialised knowledge to the facts of the case, does not expose a proper reasoning process, and is potentially prejudicial, confusing, and unfair. Even if admissible, it would be excluded on discretionary grounds.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Ray Fortune (pseudonym)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Issue
Outcome
Tender of the report of Dr Shackel is rejected.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Child Sexual Assault, Victim Behaviour, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Evidence Law Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Child Sexual Assault Victim Behaviour Credibility of Witnesses

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ray Fortune (pseudonym)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the report of Dr Shackel is admissible as expert opinion evidence under Evidence Act 1995 ss 79, 108C.
  2. 2 Whether the report meets the criteria established by case law for the admission of expert opinion evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the report should be excluded on discretionary grounds under ss 135, 137, 192 of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Shackel's report is inadmissible as expert opinion evidence because it fails to satisfy the requirements for admission, does not connect specialised knowledge to the facts of the case, does not expose a proper reasoning process, and is potentially prejudicial, confusing, and unfair. Even if admissible, it would be excluded on discretionary grounds.

Court Disposition

Tender of the report of Dr Shackel is rejected.

Orders

  • The tender of the report of Dr Shackel is rejected.