R v Davis and Quinn (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1887

R v Davis and Quinn (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1887

Leave was granted because the transcript reference to Mr Davis using "such force" clearly begged the question of how much force was needed, no such evidence had been called in the Crown case, and the resulting prejudice to Mr Davis could not be cured by a direction unless it stated that the Crown had misspoken, which the Crown did not accept.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Accused Davis's Application for Leave to Ask Expert Witness Questions Not Contained Within the Expert Report
Outcome
Evidence of Professor Duflou as to force required is permitted.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'self Defence' 'excessive Self Defence' 'expert Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'leave to Ask Questions Outside Expert Report']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'self Defence' 'excessive Self Defence' 'expert Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'leave to Ask Questions Outside Expert Report']

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 Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Accused Davis's Application for Leave to Ask Expert Witness Questions Not Contained Within the Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether accused Davis should be permitted to ask Professor Duflou additional expert questions, not contained in his served report, about the degree of force required to inflict the fatal injury.' 'Whether the Crown cross-examination of Mr Davis created prejudice or an area of speculation for the jury about how much force was required to crack the skull and cut through the brain.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the transcript reference to Mr Davis using "such force" clearly begged the question of how much force was needed, no such evidence had been called in the Crown case, and the resulting prejudice to Mr Davis could not be cured by a direction unless it stated that the Crown had misspoken, which the Crown did not accept.

Court Disposition

Evidence of Professor Duflou as to force required is permitted.

Orders

  • ['Ms Cunneen SC was granted leave to ask the additional questions of Professor Duflou.']