R v Hawkins (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 1381

R v Hawkins (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 1381

The portion of Dr Furst's report stating 'such that Mr Hawkins feared for his life, and probably the life of his children and best friend Scott on the day in question' is excluded because it is not based on specialised psychiatric knowledge, but is an assertion of belief in facts which are for the jury to determine. Dr Furst may express expert opinion on whether PTSD amplified threats, but not opinion about Hawkins' actual fear.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Objection upheld in part
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion' 'self Defence' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['expert Opinion' 'self Defence' 'admissibility of 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

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether part of the expert report by Dr Furst is admissible as evidence before the jury.' 'The scope of admissible expert opinion under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in relation to self-defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The portion of Dr Furst's report stating 'such that Mr Hawkins feared for his life, and probably the life of his children and best friend Scott on the day in question' is excluded because it is not based on specialised psychiatric knowledge, but is an assertion of belief in facts which are for the jury to determine. Dr Furst may express expert opinion on whether PTSD amplified threats, but not opinion about Hawkins' actual fear.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld in part

Orders

  • ["That part of Dr Furst's report stating 'such that Mr Hawkins feared for his life, and probably the life of his children and best friend Scott on the day in question' may not be led in evidence before the Jury."]