DPP v Farquharson (Ruling no 7)
[2007] VSC 461
•11 September 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1419 of 2006
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ROBERT DONALD WILLIAM FARQUHARSON |
Ruling No 7
JUDGE: | CUMMINS J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF RULING: | 11 September 2007 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Farquharson (Ruling No 7) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2007] VSC 461 | |
---
Criminal law and procedure – murder – evidence – admissibility.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr J Rapke QC Ms A Forrester | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr P Morrissey Mr C Mylonas | Victoria Legal Aid |
---
HIS HONOUR:
Thank you. I uphold the objection. I think this is not just a question of weight; I think it is a question of qualification and experience. By experience I mean observation of the pre-and post-impact states of a vehicle. It seems to me that the flaw in the evidence of the witness is that there is a conclusion rather than a premise, and he needs to have both aspects to draw the conclusion. He can state what the later state is but he cannot state whether it has changed or not changed from the earlier state which he has not observed. Accordingly I uphold the objection. The fact that he asserts it does not of itself mean he is qualified for it to be stated.
---
0
0
0