R v B (No.2)

In the case of R v B (No.2), the respondent, B, was facing a committal hearing for a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility and scope of medical documentation tendered in bulk without prior analysis, as well as the potential defence of non-insane automatism raised by the respondent. Additionally, the court had to address a dispute regarding the witnesses to be called during a 'Basha' hearing, which was ordered after the prosecution obtained a medical report intended to be used in rebuttal of the defence at trial.

The central legal issues revolved around the nature and scope of 'Basha' hearings in Queensland, particularly in the context of the District Court. The court had to consider whether there were any limitations on the scope and conduct of such hearings in this jurisdiction, as well as whether the proposed new statutory committal regime would likely increase the scope and frequency of these hearings. The court also needed to assess the judicial control over the use and scope of evidence during a 'Basha' hearing and determine whether the prosecution was obliged to call every witness required by the defence or only those expert witnesses upon whom it intended to rely in the trial.

The court's reasoning was grounded in an analysis of the historical scope and conduct of 'Basha' hearings in Queensland. It found that, while there were general principles governing the scope and conduct of such hearings, the specific circumstances of this case warranted a particular approach. The court held that the accused was entitled to call evidence during the 'Basha' hearing, but it refused to require the prosecution to call witnesses other than those upon whom it intended to rely in the trial. The court determined that the scope of the 'Basha' hearing in this case should be limited to the presentation of expert opinions on factual matters only, and that the prosecution was not obliged to call every witness required by the defence.

The court's orders granted the application to the extent that the accused could call evidence on the 'Basha' hearing, but refused the application in respect of a requirement for the prosecution to call on the 'Basha' hearing witnesses other than those upon whom it intended to rely in the trial. This decision provides guidance on the scope and conduct of 'Basha' hearings in Queensland, particularly in relation to the presentation of expert evidence and the obligations of the prosecution in such hearings.