Daniel v State of Western Australia [2000] FCA 1356

Daniel v State of Western Australia [2000] FCA 1356

The objected evidence in Mr O'Connor's reports generally carried a danger of unfair prejudice if used beyond the expert evidence purpose, so its use was limited under s 136 to the application of s 79, with specific passages variously excluded from that limitation, limited, deleted by concession, or excluded under ss 76 or 135 as set out in the rulings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Native Title Proceeding / Reasons for Rulings on Evidence Objections to Expert Anthropologist Reports
Outcome
Evidence objections particularised; most objected passages were limited in use under s 136 to the s 79 expert evidence purpose, with specified passages deleted, excluded, or excluded from limitation.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'relevance' 'expert Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'limitation of Use of Evidence' 'anthropological Evidence']
['native Title' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'relevance' 'expert Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'limitation of Use of Evidence' 'anthropological 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

Native Title Proceeding / Reasons for Rulings on Evidence Objections to Expert Anthropologist Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether objected passages in the expert anthropologist reports of Mr Rory O'Connor should be subject to a limitation on use under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)." 'Whether particular passages should be excluded from the general s 136 limitation, deleted, or excluded under provisions including ss 76 and 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether hearsay material could be admitted for the purpose of applying s 79 to the expert evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The objected evidence in Mr O'Connor's reports generally carried a danger of unfair prejudice if used beyond the expert evidence purpose, so its use was limited under s 136 to the application of s 79, with specific passages variously excluded from that limitation, limited, deleted by concession, or excluded under ss 76 or 135 as set out in the rulings.

Court Disposition

Evidence objections particularised; most objected passages were limited in use under s 136 to the s 79 expert evidence purpose, with specified passages deleted, excluded, or excluded from limitation.

Orders

  • ["The use of the objected evidence in Mr O'Connor's reports was limited pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to the application of s 79 of that Act where the Court found danger of unfair prejudice." 'Specific passages identified in Volume 1, Volume 2 and the Supplementary Report were ruled on...