R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 3) [2022] NSWDC 139

R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 3) [2022] NSWDC 139

The tendered paragraphs were inadmissible because the officer in charge of the investigation was not an impartial expert witness, the report was served very late in breach of procedural orders, Senior Constable Grogin's experience was not sufficient to qualify him as an expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995, and the report did not adequately disclose the reasoning process for the opinions expressed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Voir Dire on Expert Evidence Admissibility / Crown Application to Adduce a Statement Purporting to Be an Expert Certificate Under S 177 of the Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Tender rejected in part
Legal Topics
['voir Dire' 'expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'admissibility' 'prosecutorial Disclosure' 'expert Witness Impartiality' 'drug Expert Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'practice and Procedure'] ['voir Dire' 'expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'admissibility' 'prosecutorial Disclosure' 'expert Witness Impartiality' 'drug Expert 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 Proceeding; Voir Dire on Expert Evidence Admissibility / Crown Application to Adduce a Statement Purporting to Be an Expert Certificate Under S 177 of the Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the officer in charge of the investigation could give admissible expert evidence as a drug expert in the prosecution in which he was the informant.' 'Whether Senior Constable Grogin had specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience sufficient for s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the late service of the proposed expert report and non-compliance with earlier orders justified rejection of the evidence.' 'Whether the proposed expert evidence adequately disclosed the reasoning process for the opinions expressed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tendered paragraphs were inadmissible because the officer in charge of the investigation was not an impartial expert witness, the report was served very late in breach of procedural orders, Senior Constable Grogin's experience was not sufficient to qualify him as an expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995, and the report did not adequately disclose the reasoning process for the opinions expressed.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected in part

Orders

  • ['I reject the tender of pars 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27 of the statement of Senior Constable Grogin which bears date 28 March 2022 in Exhibit VD1']