R v Jacobs (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 943

R v Jacobs (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 943

The expert evidence about the effect of methamphetamine on the accused was relevant because, where the central issue was whether the accused was the shooter and the Crown alleged a bizarrely risky and aggressive act, the drug's effects could rationally affect the assessment of that issue. Its probative value was quite high because it provided an explanation for otherwise apparently disproportionate conduct. Although evidence of prohibited drug use carried a danger of unfair prejudice, that danger did not outweigh the probative value, particularly because the jury could be directed appropriately and could assess the evidence's weaknesses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal; Procedural and Other Ruling in a Murder Trial / Voir Dire Objection to Admissibility of Pharmacologist Evidence Before Jury Empanelment
Outcome
The application for the exclusion of the evidence of Mr Allender with regard to the effect of methamphetamine on the accused is rejected.
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'methamphetamine Intoxication Evidence' 'identification of Offender']
['evidence Law' 'criminal Law'] ['relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'methamphetamine Intoxication Evidence' 'identification of Offender']

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

Common Law Criminal; Procedural and Other Ruling in a Murder Trial / Voir Dire Objection to Admissibility of Pharmacologist Evidence Before Jury Empanelment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of methamphetamine in the accused's blood and an expert opinion about its effect on his behaviour was relevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 to whether he was the shooter." 'Whether, under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995, the probative value of the expert evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The expert evidence about the effect of methamphetamine on the accused was relevant because, where the central issue was whether the accused was the shooter and the Crown alleged a bizarrely risky and aggressive act, the drug's effects could rationally affect the assessment of that issue. Its probative value was quite high because it provided an explanation for otherwise apparently disproportionate conduct. Although evidence of prohibited drug use carried a danger of unfair prejudice, that danger did not outweigh the probative value, particularly because the jury could be directed appropriately and could assess the evidence's weaknesses.

Court Disposition

The application for the exclusion of the evidence of Mr Allender with regard to the effect of methamphetamine on the accused is rejected.

Orders

  • ['The application for the exclusion of the evidence of Mr Allender with regard to the effect of methamphetamine on the accused is respectfully rejected.']