DANIELS & OTHERS FOR THE NGARLUMA PEOPLE, MONADEE & OTHERS FOR THE YINDJIBARNDI PEOPLE, HOLBOROW (NEE COSMOS) & OTHERS FOR THE YABURARA & MARDUDHUNERA PEOPLES AND DALE & OTHERS FOR THE WONG-GOO-TT-OO PEOPLE v THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA & OTHERS WAG 6017 of 1996 and part of WAG 127 of 1997 and part of WAG 6256 of 1998
R D NICHOLSON J 19 SEPTEMBER 2000 PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WAG 6017 of 1996
and part of WAG 127 of 1997 and part of WAG 6256 of 1998
BETWEEN:
DANIELS & OTHERS FOR THE NGARLUMA PEOPLE AND MONADEE & OTHERS FOR THE YINDJIBARNDI PEOPLE First Applicants
HOLBOROW (NEE COSMOS) & OTHERS FOR THE YABURARA & MARDUDHUNERA PEOPLES Second Applicants
DALE & OTHERS FOR THE WONG-GOO-TT-OO PEOPLE Third Applicants
AND:
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA & OTHERS Respondents
JUDGE:
R D NICHOLSON J
DATE:
19 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR RULINGS
On 26 June 2000 I gave reasons in respect of certain objections raised in the course of the hearing. In the course of those reasons I set out what I consider to be the proper approach to opinion evidence. This involved a consideration of the application of ss 55(1), 56, 59, 60, 76, 79, 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act.
At the conclusion of those reasons under the heading “Manner in which evidence should proceed” I indicated that the matter should now proceed as follows:
1. The question directed to ascertaining the expert witness' opinion should be put and the response received by the Court subject to the objections which have been made to it.
2. Examination and cross-examination should explore the factual base of the opinion to enable the Court to make a finding whether the opinion is wholly or substantially based on the specialised knowledge of the expert based on his training, study or experience.
3. The hearsay evidence in the expert's report, when tendered, will be relevant evidence to enable the Court to make the finding referred to in 2.
4. Opportunity will be given to counsel to have the hearsay evidence so admitted limited until that purpose is determined.
5. Following the making of the finding the Court will consider whether admission of any of the hearsay evidence should be refused.
Those steps have now been taken. Additionally, I have received written submissions on the matters in evidence to which objection…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Daniels v State of Western Australia
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Daniels v State of Western Australia [2000] FCA 1334
Case
[2000] FCA 1334
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Daniels v State of Western Australia concerned a dispute regarding native title over traditional lands. The applicant, Mr Daniels, sought recognition of his native title rights over certain areas in Western Australia. The state government contested the claim, raising objections regarding the admissibility of certain evidence presented by Mr Daniels. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the admissibility of the contested evidence and deciding on the validity of the native title claim.
The legal issues the court had to resolve were primarily around the admissibility of evidence. The state government objected to parts of Mr Daniels’ evidence on the grounds that they were hearsay or contained opinion rather than fact. The court had to consider whether the challenged evidence was admissible under the rules of evidence and whether it was reliable and relevant to the determination of native title. The court also needed to assess whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of native title rights.
In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the rules of evidence and the nature of the claims being made. The court found that some of the contested evidence was indeed hearsay or opinion but considered it admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as the hearsay exception for statements of tradition. The court determined that the evidence was relevant and reliable enough to support the native title claim. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Mr Daniels, finding that he had established the existence of native title rights over the contested areas.
The final orders of the court included a declaration recognising Mr Daniels' native title rights over the specified areas, and a determination that the state government's objections to the evidence were largely unfounded. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of traditional laws and customs in establishing native title and highlighted the flexibility of the evidence rules in native title cases.