R v Warwick (No.90) [2020] NSWSC 70

R v Warwick (No.90) [2020] NSWSC 70

The inference relied upon to establish the relevance of Dr Jools' report was not capable of being drawn because Dr Jools was not asked to opine on the Accused's capacity to commit the offences or perform the steps involved in Events 3 to 7, had no apparent information about what was required to design, construct, place or initiate the bombs, and the assumptions and facts in the report did not provide the necessary context or proper foundation. As no other part of the report was relied on as relevant, the evidence was not relevant and leave to adduce it served no purpose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Tender and Admissibility of Expert Report
Outcome
Tender of the report of Dr Jools dated 8 February 2020 is rejected.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'relevance' 'leave to Adduce Expert Evidence Served Out of Time']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Expert Report' 'relevance' 'leave to Adduce Expert Evidence Served Out of Time']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Tender and Admissibility of Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the report of Dr Penelope Jools dated 8 February 2020 was admissible as expert evidence.' 'Whether an inference could be drawn from the report about the capacity of the Accused to undertake steps involved in Events 3 to 7 involving improvised explosive devices.' 'Whether the report provided a proper foundation for the opinions expressed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The inference relied upon to establish the relevance of Dr Jools' report was not capable of being drawn because Dr Jools was not asked to opine on the Accused's capacity to commit the offences or perform the steps involved in Events 3 to 7, had no apparent information about what was required to design, construct, place or initiate the bombs, and the assumptions and facts in the report did not provide the necessary context or proper foundation. As no other part of the report was relied on as relevant, the evidence was not relevant and leave to adduce it served no purpose.

Court Disposition

Tender of the report of Dr Jools dated 8 February 2020 is rejected.

Orders

  • ['Tender of the report of Dr Jools dated 8 February 2020 is rejected.']