R v Briggs (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 854

R v Briggs (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 854

Because the parties agreed that Dr Vuletic's evidence was likely to be contentious and that her physical attendance was in the interests of the administration of justice, and because defence counsel foreshadowed cross-examination requiring direct examination of tendered objects that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to manage by remote link, the Court directed that Dr Vuletic give evidence in person.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Direction made requiring Dr Vuletic to give evidence in person.
Legal Topics
['government Agency Witnesses' 'audio Visual Link Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'forensic Pathology Evidence' 'contentious Evidence' 'administration of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['government Agency Witnesses' 'audio Visual Link Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'forensic Pathology Evidence' 'contentious Evidence' 'administration of Justice']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the forensic pathologist, Dr Vuletic, should give evidence by audio visual link or be required to appear physically before the Court.' 'Whether the evidence to be given by Dr Vuletic was likely to be contentious and whether physical attendance was in the interests of the administration of justice.' 'Whether logistical difficulties with examining tendered objects affected the availability or suitability of an audio visual link.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties agreed that Dr Vuletic's evidence was likely to be contentious and that her physical attendance was in the interests of the administration of justice, and because defence counsel foreshadowed cross-examination requiring direct examination of tendered objects that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to manage by remote link, the Court directed that Dr Vuletic give evidence in person.

Court Disposition

Direction made requiring Dr Vuletic to give evidence in person.

Orders

  • ['The forensic pathologist, Dr Vuletic, is required to give evidence in the witness box in person in this trial.']