R v Rawlinson; R v Proud; R v Spicer [2014] NSWSC 224

R v Rawlinson; R v Proud; R v Spicer [2014] NSWSC 224

Detective Sutherland is sufficiently qualified by training and experience to give expert opinion evidence on the cause and origin of the fire, and her opinions are admissible under s 79(1) Evidence Act 1995.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Bradley Max Rawlinson; Accused: Michelle Sharon Proud; Accused: Bernard Justin Spicer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Exclude Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Opinion Evidence, Specialised Knowledge, Admissibility of Opinion Evidence
Evidence Expert Evidence Opinion Evidence Specialised Knowledge Admissibility of Opinion 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Bradley Max Rawlinson

Accused

Michelle Sharon Proud

Accused

Bernard Justin Spicer

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Exclude Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Detective Sutherland is qualified to give expert opinion evidence as to the cause and origin of the fire
  2. 2 Whether Detective Sutherland's opinions are wholly or substantially based on her specialised knowledge under s 79(1) Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

Detective Sutherland is sufficiently qualified by training and experience to give expert opinion evidence on the cause and origin of the fire, and her opinions are admissible under s 79(1) Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed

Orders

  • Application to exclude the evidence of Detective Sutherland dismissed