Taub v R [2017] NSWCCA 198

Taub v R [2017] NSWCCA 198

Mr Ballard's expert opinion evidence was admissible because the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) did not require the Crown to prove the truth of the assumptions underlying the opinion as a condition of admissibility, and the evidence met the admissibility requirements for expert opinion. However, the conviction for manufacturing a large commercial quantity could not stand because Mr Ballard conceded a possibility that less than 1 kilogram of methylamphetamine had been produced, leaving the Crown unable to prove that element beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence nevertheless established that the appellant manufactured at least 250 grams, so a conviction for manufacturing not less than the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction allowed; verdict for manufacturing not less than the large commercial quantity set aside; conviction substituted for manufacturing not less than the commercial quantity; matter remitted to the District Court for sentencing.
Legal Topics
['expert Opinion Evidence' 'opinion Rule' 'proof of Assumption Rule' 'basis Rule' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'manufacture of Methylamphetamine' 'substitution of Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['expert Opinion Evidence' 'opinion Rule' 'proof of Assumption Rule' 'basis Rule' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'manufacture of Methylamphetamine' 'substitution of Verdict']

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 to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in admitting expert opinion evidence as to the quantity of methylamphetamine manufactured.' 'Whether the verdict of guilty of manufacturing not less than the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether a verdict of guilty of manufacturing not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine should be substituted under s 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Ballard's expert opinion evidence was admissible because the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) did not require the Crown to prove the truth of the assumptions underlying the opinion as a condition of admissibility, and the evidence met the admissibility requirements for expert opinion. However, the conviction for manufacturing a large commercial quantity could not stand because Mr Ballard conceded a possibility that less than 1 kilogram of methylamphetamine had been produced, leaving the Crown unable to prove that element beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence nevertheless established that the appellant manufactured at least 250 grams, so a conviction for manufacturing not less than the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction allowed; verdict for manufacturing not less than the large commercial quantity set aside; conviction substituted for manufacturing not less than the commercial quantity; matter remitted to the District Court for sentencing.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction of manufacturing not less than the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine allowed.' 'The verdict of guilty of that offence be set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), the appellant be convicted of manufacturing not less than the...