R v Loyd Bandao and James Bruce [2017] NSWDC 98

R v Loyd Bandao and James Bruce [2017] NSWDC 98

Although the expert report dated 14 March 2017 was served on 15 March 2017 in breach of the pre-trial disclosure requirements, the solicitors for both accused had obtained sufficient instructions and expert advice to meet the Crown's late-served material, and neither accused alleged actual prejudice. It was therefore not in the interests of justice to exclude the expert evidence merely because of the late service, and the notice of motion was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion During Joint Trial Seeking Exclusion of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; expert evidence may be admitted into the Crown's case.
Legal Topics
['pre Trial Disclosure' 'non Compliance With Disclosure Requirements' 'sanctions for Non Compliance' 'expert Evidence' 'adjournment' 'exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['pre Trial Disclosure' 'non Compliance With Disclosure Requirements' 'sanctions for Non Compliance' 'expert Evidence' 'adjournment' 'exclusion of 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

Criminal Procedural Ruling / Notice of Motion During Joint Trial Seeking Exclusion of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown's late service of expert evidence breached pre-trial disclosure requirements." "Whether the expert evidence of Mr John Farrer should be excluded under ss 130 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Act because of the Crown's non-compliance." 'Whether the accused suffered prejudice from the late service of the expert report.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the expert report dated 14 March 2017 was served on 15 March 2017 in breach of the pre-trial disclosure requirements, the solicitors for both accused had obtained sufficient instructions and expert advice to meet the Crown's late-served material, and neither accused alleged actual prejudice. It was therefore not in the interests of justice to exclude the expert evidence merely because of the late service, and the notice of motion was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; expert evidence may be admitted into the Crown's case.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted for the notice of motion dated 20 March 2017 to be filed over the objection of the Crown.' 'The notice of motion dated 20 March 2017 is dismissed.']