Morgan v R [2016] NSWCCA 25

Morgan v R [2016] NSWCCA 25

The point that Detective Goodhart lacked admissible ad hoc expertise under s 79 was not taken at trial; the trial judge was not asked to decide that question and therefore did not wrongly decide it. Rule 4 required leave to rely on the ground, and given the position adopted at trial and the lack of substance in the argument, there was no basis to grant leave. Honeysett did not overrule or establish error in the existing ad hoc expert authorities, and this Court as constituted could not overrule them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court; No Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Sought
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'voice Identification Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'ad Hoc Expert Evidence' 'failure to Object at Trial' 'leave to Rely on Ground of Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conviction Appeal' 'voice Identification Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'ad Hoc Expert Evidence' 'failure to Object at Trial' 'leave to Rely on Ground of Appeal']

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 Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court; No Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Sought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in admitting Detective Goodhart's voice identification evidence as ad hoc expert evidence." 'Whether the evidence was inadmissible under s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and outside the exception in s 79.' 'Whether, because no objection was taken at trial to the characterisation of the evidence as ad hoc expert evidence, leave was required and should be granted under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The point that Detective Goodhart lacked admissible ad hoc expertise under s 79 was not taken at trial; the trial judge was not asked to decide that question and therefore did not wrongly decide it. Rule 4 required leave to rely on the ground, and given the position adopted at trial and the lack of substance in the argument, there was no basis to grant leave. Honeysett did not overrule or establish error in the existing ad hoc expert authorities, and this Court as constituted could not overrule them.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.']