R v Ludeke [2016] NSWDC 57

R v Ludeke [2016] NSWDC 57

Given the lack of any satisfactory explanation for the lateness of the expert report and the significant history of the prosecution's decision making on expert evidence, the Court refused to admit Mr Farrar's evidence in accordance with ss 130 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Parties
Crown: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Adam Ludeke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Motion
Outcome
Expert evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Disclosure, Expert Evidence, Sanctions for Non Compliance
Criminal Procedure Pre Trial Disclosure Expert Evidence Sanctions for Non Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Crown

Adam Ludeke

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown's failure to provide an expert's report within statutory timeframes justifies exclusion of the evidence or an adjournment under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 146

Ratio Decidendi

Given the lack of any satisfactory explanation for the lateness of the expert report and the significant history of the prosecution's decision making on expert evidence, the Court refused to admit Mr Farrar's evidence in accordance with ss 130 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Expert evidence excluded

Orders

  • Pursuant to ss 130 and 146(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the evidence of John Farrar is not admitted in these proceedings.