R v RM [2023] NSWDC 90

R v RM [2023] NSWDC 90

The Crown did not establish that Mr Reid had specialised knowledge enabling him to opine on the nature or qualities of a semen stain or how it was deposited. Reasoning by analogy from blood stain training and a lay appreciation of gravity was insufficient to satisfy s 79, particularly given acknowledged differences between blood and semen. The evidence also carried a risk of unfair prejudice or of being misleading or confusing under s 135.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Involving Multiple Sexual Offences / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Expert Evidence Following a 'basha' Inquiry
Outcome
Objection sustained.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'semen Stain Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'semen Stain Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing 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 Trial Involving Multiple Sexual Offences / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Expert Evidence Following a 'basha' Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Reid was qualified to express opinion evidence about the nature of the semen stain or how it was deposited on the bed frame.' 'Whether the proposed opinion evidence was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge for the purposes of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the evidence should alternatively be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because of a risk of unfair prejudice or of being misleading or confusing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not establish that Mr Reid had specialised knowledge enabling him to opine on the nature or qualities of a semen stain or how it was deposited. Reasoning by analogy from blood stain training and a lay appreciation of gravity was insufficient to satisfy s 79, particularly given acknowledged differences between blood and semen. The evidence also carried a risk of unfair prejudice or of being misleading or confusing under s 135.

Court Disposition

Objection sustained.

Orders

  • ["Counsel for the accused's objection about Officer Reid opining about the nature or qualities of the semen stain detected was sustained."]