Honeysett v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Honeysett against his conviction for robbery. The prosecution's case was largely circumstantial, relying heavily on DNA evidence found on items at the scene, which matched the appellant. A key element of the prosecution's case involved the admission of opinion evidence from an anatomist, Professor Henneberg, who provided an opinion on the physical characteristics of one of the robbers depicted in CCTV footage, comparing them to the appellant. The appellant denied involvement and presented evidence regarding cultural practices within his community.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the opinion evidence of Professor Henneberg, concerning the physical characteristics of the offender in the CCTV footage, was admissible under section 79(1) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). This section provides an exception to the opinion rule, allowing evidence of an opinion if the person possesses specialised knowledge based on their training, study, or experience, and the opinion is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge. The court had to determine if Professor Henneberg's opinion met these criteria, specifically whether it was based on "specialised knowledge" and if it was "wholly or substantially" derived from such knowledge, distinguishing it from common knowledge or mere speculation.

The High Court reasoned that Professor Henneberg's opinion was not based on specialised knowledge as required by section 79(1) of the *Evidence Act*. The court noted that specialised knowledge must be more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation, requiring an acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles derived from study or investigation. While Professor Henneberg was an anatomist, his opinion regarding the physical characteristics of the individual in the CCTV footage, particularly given the poor quality of the images and the disguises worn, was found to be based on inferences that were not sufficiently grounded in his training, study, or experience to qualify as specialised knowledge for the purposes of the exception. Consequently, the admission of this evidence was deemed a legal error.

Given that the admission of Professor Henneberg's evidence constituted a legal error and the respondent did not argue that the appeal should be dismissed under the proviso, the High Court allowed the appeal. The orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales were set aside, the appellant's conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.