R v Hawi & ors (No 24) [2011] NSWSC 1670

R v Hawi & ors (No 24) [2011] NSWSC 1670

Professor Henneberg's inability to identify the person in the Deng footage was not relevant because no party contended that the footage itself permitted identification and the Crown relied on other evidence for that inference. His opinions about clothing and jewellery were not shown to be wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge within s 79, and in any event did not add anything to what the jury could discern for itself. The evidence was not capable of rationally affecting the jury's assessment of whether the person in the footage was Mr Menzies and was not admissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence not admissible
Legal Topics
['admissibility' 'relevance' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'identification Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility' 'relevance' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'identification 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

Common Law Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Professor Henneberg's evidence that he could not identify a person of interest in the Deng footage was relevant and admissible." "Whether Professor Henneberg's evidence about the person's clothing and absence of discernible jewellery was admissible as expert opinion based on specialised knowledge." "Whether the evidence could rationally affect the jury's assessment of whether the person of interest in the Deng footage was Mr Menzies."]

Ratio Decidendi

Professor Henneberg's inability to identify the person in the Deng footage was not relevant because no party contended that the footage itself permitted identification and the Crown relied on other evidence for that inference. His opinions about clothing and jewellery were not shown to be wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge within s 79, and in any event did not add anything to what the jury could discern for itself. The evidence was not capable of rationally affecting the jury's assessment of whether the person in the footage was Mr Menzies and was not admissible.

Court Disposition

Evidence not admissible

Orders

  • ["Professor Henneberg's evidence was not admissible."]