R v A, A - [2010] SADC 126

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v A, A
[2010] SADC 126
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Clayton
20 September 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - GENERALLY
EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - OPINION EVIDENCE - EXPERT OPINION - IN GENERAL
EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - OPINION EVIDENCE - EXPERT OPINION - QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESS
Application to exclude identification evidence. CCTV footage showed offender from the rear holding a weapon. Prosecution sought to lead evidence of expert biological anthropologist and anatomist stating the similarities between accused and offender shown in CCTV. Basis for opinion was that both accused and offender on the CCTV recording were tall with a very athletic body build, wide shoulders, right handed, long and thin lower limbs, smoothly rounded skull and thick rims of both ears. Witness concluded offender was “very likely” to be the accused. Whether irrelevant and/or inadmissible opinion evidence. Proposed expert evidence of similarities not dependent upon any expertise. Observations of similarities in this case fundamental and capable of being made by jury themselves. Distinction between expert evidence of facial mapping and body mapping. Proposed opinion is a bare ipse dixit. Opinion that offender "very likely" to be accused is a matter for the jury alone. Evidence excluded.
R v Murdoch (No 4) [2005] NTSC 78; R v Osborne (unreported 22 October 2008); Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; R v Tang [2006] NSWCCA 167; R v Jung [2006] NSWSC 658; HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 at 427; R v Gray [2003] EWCA Crim 1001; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association (Europe) OV v Jetopay Pty Ltd (2000) 120 FCR 146, considered.

R v A, A
[2010] SADC 126

Mr A was charged with having control of a firearm for the purpose of committing an offence, possessing a firearm without a licence, aggravated threatening to cause harm, aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm and possessing a firearm without a licence.
The first two counts were alleged to have been committed in Gouger Street, Adelaide on 4 May 2008. Count three is alleged to have been committed at Blair Athol on 31 July 2008 and counts four and five are alleged to have been committed at Blair Athol on 2 August 2008. A nolle prosequi has now been entered on counts 1 and 2.
The evidence in connection with counts one and two included a closed-circuit television recording taken from the Escobar nightclub, which shows the southern footpath of Gouger Street adjacent to Gauchos restaurant, looking east. A male person appears in the images holding a handgun in his right hand. That person was wearing a white t-shirt and had a shaved head. The camera only captured a view of the rear right-side of that person as he moved east along the…

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 R v A, A

Details

AGLC: R v A, A [2010] SADC 126
Case: [2010] SADC 126
Decision Date: 20 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v A, A involved a criminal prosecution where the main issue was the admissibility of expert opinion evidence. The defendant was accused of a serious crime and the prosecution sought to rely on expert opinion evidence to establish certain facts relevant to the case. The court had to determine whether the expert opinion evidence was relevant and admissible under the applicable legal principles.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed expert opinion evidence was relevant to the facts in issue and whether the expert witness was qualified to give such opinion. The court had to consider the principles governing the admissibility of expert opinion evidence, including the requirement that the evidence must assist the court in deciding issues that are within its fact-finding role and that the expert witness must have the necessary expertise to provide the opinion.

The court found that the expert opinion evidence was relevant to the facts in issue, as it could assist in establishing a fact that was central to the prosecution's case. The court also determined that the expert witness was qualified to provide the opinion, as they had the necessary expertise and experience in the relevant field. Accordingly, the court held that the expert opinion evidence was admissible and could be considered by the jury in reaching their verdict.

The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the admissibility of expert opinion evidence in criminal trials. It highlights the importance of ensuring that expert opinion evidence is both relevant and provided by a qualified expert, in order to be admissible before the court. The court's reasoning in this case will be of particular interest to legal practitioners involved in criminal cases where expert opinion evidence is relied upon.

Orders