R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 184

R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 184

Dr Gaudry's conclusion that the scars on Afu's left hand could have been caused at the time of the alleged incident is inadmissible, as permitting such evidence risks the jury giving it more weight than deserved and this is ultimately a question for the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Expert evidence conclusion ruled inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'relevance of Evidence' 'risk of Jury Misuse']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'relevance of Evidence' 'risk of Jury Misuse']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Gaudry's expert conclusion that scars on Afu's left hand could have been caused by cuts at the time of the alleged offence is admissible."]

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Gaudry's conclusion that the scars on Afu's left hand could have been caused at the time of the alleged incident is inadmissible, as permitting such evidence risks the jury giving it more weight than deserved and this is ultimately a question for the jury.

Court Disposition

Expert evidence conclusion ruled inadmissible.

Orders

  • ["Dr Gaudry's specific conclusion about the cause of scars at the time of the alleged incident is inadmissible."]