R v J Lucas; R v B Lucas (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 1809

R v J Lucas; R v B Lucas (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 1809

Voice identification evidence from Federal Agent Cuthbertson is inadmissible because he is in no better position than the jury to assess the identity of the voice and does not qualify as an ad hoc expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); in any event, the evidence is irrelevant and, if relevant and admissible, must be excluded owing to unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
voice identification evidence excluded
Legal Topics
['voice Identification' 'admissibility of Expert Opinion' 'relevance' 'probative Vs Prejudicial Value']

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

  1. 1 ['Is the voice identification evidence proffered by Federal Agent Cuthbertson admissible?' 'Does Federal Agent Cuthbertson qualify as an ad hoc expert under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)?' 'Is the opinion evidence relevant or unfairly prejudicial under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)?']

Ratio Decidendi

Voice identification evidence from Federal Agent Cuthbertson is inadmissible because he is in no better position than the jury to assess the identity of the voice and does not qualify as an ad hoc expert under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); in any event, the evidence is irrelevant and, if relevant and admissible, must be excluded owing to unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

voice identification evidence excluded

Orders

  • ['Voice identification evidence of Federal Agent Cuthbertson is not permitted to be led in the trial.']