R v MP [2021] NSWDC 40

R v MP [2021] NSWDC 40

Dr Shackel does not have specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience in child and adolescent psychology or psychiatry. Her report is a collation of research and constitutes an opinion as to what other persons' opinions are, rather than a truly expert opinion. Therefore, her evidence is not admissible under s79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
The evidence is inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'judicial Comity']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'specialised Knowledge' 'judicial Comity']

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 / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Shackel's report constitutes admissible expert opinion evidence under s79 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)" 'Whether Dr Shackel possesses specialised knowledge based on training, study, or experience sufficient to satisfy the requirements of s79']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Shackel does not have specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience in child and adolescent psychology or psychiatry. Her report is a collation of research and constitutes an opinion as to what other persons' opinions are, rather than a truly expert opinion. Therefore, her evidence is not admissible under s79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The evidence is inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Dr Shackel is not admitted.']