R v Warwick (No.37) [2019] NSWSC 196

R v Warwick (No.37) [2019] NSWSC 196

Mr Sheather's training and experience established specialised knowledge in the design, componentry and intended or actual activation of improvised explosive devices, and in crime scene analysis including post-blast analysis. Opinion evidence substantially based on that expertise and relevant to issues in the trial was admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995. Failure to adopt the Expert Code of Conduct did not itself render the evidence inadmissible, and refreshed recollection was not a basis to exclude otherwise admissible evidence. Specific evidence lacking an identified basis, or not amounting to expert opinion, was not admissible as expert opinion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal; Voir Dire Ruling on Expert Evidence / During Trial, After Voir Dire Examination of Crown Witness Mr Jesse Sheather
Outcome
Evidentiary rulings made partly allowing and partly rejecting the Crown's proposed expert opinion evidence from Mr Sheather.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'voir Dire' 'refreshing Memory' 'expert Code of Conduct' 'improvised Explosive Devices' 'crime Scene Analysis' 'post Blast Analysis']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'voir Dire' 'refreshing Memory' 'expert Code of Conduct' 'improvised Explosive Devices' 'crime Scene Analysis' 'post Blast Analysis']

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

Common Law Criminal; Voir Dire Ruling on Expert Evidence / During Trial, After Voir Dire Examination of Crown Witness Mr Jesse Sheather

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Sheather was appropriately qualified to give expert opinion evidence about improvised explosive devices and post-blast or crime scene analysis.' "Whether opinion evidence identified in specific paragraphs and annexures of Mr Sheather's statement was admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995." "Whether failure to adopt the Expert Code of Conduct made Mr Sheather's opinion evidence inadmissible." 'Whether evidence refreshed from prior materials was inadmissible or hearsay.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sheather's training and experience established specialised knowledge in the design, componentry and intended or actual activation of improvised explosive devices, and in crime scene analysis including post-blast analysis. Opinion evidence substantially based on that expertise and relevant to issues in the trial was admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995. Failure to adopt the Expert Code of Conduct did not itself render the evidence inadmissible, and refreshed recollection was not a basis to exclude otherwise admissible evidence. Specific evidence lacking an identified basis, or not amounting to expert opinion, was not admissible as expert opinion.

Court Disposition

Evidentiary rulings made partly allowing and partly rejecting the Crown's proposed expert opinion evidence from Mr Sheather.

Orders

  • ['Allow the Crown to tender Annexure 4 and an oral description of it, of the kind contained in paragraph 16 of the statement of Detective Sheather of 15/12/2015 (Exh VD1).' 'Reject the answer at T.1600.25 as it presently stands on the basis of the question which was asked.' 'Material in paragraphs 34 and 35 and...