R v Warwick (No.62) [2018] NSWSC 2028
The evidence of Mr Barnes is capable of acceptance, is relevant under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act, he is qualified as an expert under s 79, his opinions are based on specialised knowledge, and there is no basis for exclusion under ss 135 or 137; therefore, both his evidence and related exhibits are admitted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
- Outcome
- application granted; evidence admitted
- Legal Topics
- ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'relevance' 'expert Qualifications' 'voir Dire' 'opinion Rule' 'unfair Prejudice']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether Mr Barnes' evidence is relevant under s 55 and s 56 of the Evidence Act 1995" 'Whether Mr Barnes qualifies as an expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995' "Whether Mr Barnes' opinions are based on specialised knowledge" 'Whether evidence should be excluded under s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 due to unfair prejudice']
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence of Mr Barnes is capable of acceptance, is relevant under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act, he is qualified as an expert under s 79, his opinions are based on specialised knowledge, and there is no basis for exclusion under ss 135 or 137; therefore, both his evidence and related exhibits are admitted.
Court Disposition
application granted; evidence admitted
Orders
- ['The evidence of Robert Barnes (T.3636-T.3790, T.3804-T.4149) taken on the voir dire is admitted into evidence for the trial.' 'Exhibits VD5 to VD39 inclusive are admitted as Exh 322 to Exh 356 in the trial.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment