R v Tan Phuong LE (No 4) [2010] NSWDC 39

R v Tan Phuong LE (No 4) [2010] NSWDC 39

The proposed expert evidence was rejected because the material relied on, including sparse and unhelpful literature and references to Stockholm Syndrome, did not establish a field of expertise supporting the opinions; even if such a field existed, the doctors were not shown to have expertise in it, and there was no evidence that the accused suffered from any diagnosable psychiatric condition relevant to the opinions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Evidence Ruling / Objection to Proposed Expert Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Evidence is rejected.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'duress' 'stockholm Syndrome']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'duress' 'stockholm Syndrome']

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 Evidence Ruling / Objection to Proposed Expert Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed psychiatric and psychological opinion evidence about how a person acting under duress might talk and act was admissible.' 'Whether there was a demonstrated field of expertise or specialised knowledge supporting the proposed opinions.' 'Whether the proposed experts were shown to be qualified in any such field.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed expert evidence was rejected because the material relied on, including sparse and unhelpful literature and references to Stockholm Syndrome, did not establish a field of expertise supporting the opinions; even if such a field existed, the doctors were not shown to have expertise in it, and there was no evidence that the accused suffered from any diagnosable psychiatric condition relevant to the opinions.

Court Disposition

Evidence is rejected.

Orders

  • ['The proposed evidence of the psychiatrist and psychologist is rejected.']