Legal Research
Cases
R v Bowie (No 1)

R v Bowie (No 1)

Case [2022] NSWSC 1502 4 November 2022

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bowie (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1502
Hearing dates: 26 September 2022
Date of orders: 26 September 2022
Decision date: 04 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Yehia J
Decision:
The evidence of Sergeant Lauren Atwood is inadmissible

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE — Murder trial — Missing body — Opinion evidence about the capacity of pigs to devour a human cadaver without leaving a trace —Relevance of the evidence where the experiment conducted involved porcine and kangaroo carcasses — Whether an area of specialised knowledge exists — Whether the opinion is based upon specialised knowledge — Whether the reliability of the opinion is relevant to the determination of admissibility of expert evidence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 55, 79(1) and 137
Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 79(1)

Cases Cited:
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
HG (1999) 197 CLR 414; [1999] HCA 2
Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122; [2014] HCA 29
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
Morgan v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 257; (2011) 215 A Crim R 33
Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94; [1989] HCA 28
R v McIntyre [2001] NSWSC 311
R v Mohan [1994] 2 SCR 9
R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681; [2006] NSWCCA 167
R v Trochym [2007] 1 SCR 239
Tuite v The Queen (2015) 49 VR 196; [2015] VSCA 148
Xie v The Queen (2021) 386 ALR 371; [2021] NSWCCA 1

Texts Cited:
Andrew Ligertwood and Gary Edmond, Australian Evidence: A Principled Approach to the Common Law and the Uniform Evidence Acts (5th ed, 2010, LexisNexis Butterworths)
Evidence (Interim) [1985] ALRC 26 (21 August 1985)
Gary Edmond, “The Admissibility of Forensic Science and Medicine Evidence under the Unform Evidence Law” (2014) 38 Criminal Law Journal 136
Gary Edmond and Mehra San Roque, “Honeysett v The Queen: Forensic Science, ‘Specialised Knowledge’ and the Uniform Evidence Law” (2014) 36 Sydney Law Review 323
Prudence Buckland, “Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 311 ALR 320: Opinion Evidence and Reliability, A Sticking Point” (2014) 35 Adelaide Law Review 449

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
John Douglas Bowie (Accused0
Representation:
Counsel:
A Morris (Crown)
W Terracini SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Department of Public Prosecution (Crown)
LY Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/00146792

Judgment

Roxlyn Bowie (“Roxlyn”) disappeared on 5 June 1982. At the time, Roxlyn lived at 93 Euroka Street, Walgett, with her husband, John Bowie (“the accused”), and their two children, a daughter aged six years old and a son who was nearly two years old. She has not been seen or heard from since.
On 5 October 2019, the accused was arrested and charged with the murder of Roxlyn. The accused pleaded not guilty to the one count of murder on the indictment, an offence contrary to s 18…

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 Bowie (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Bowie (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1502
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1502
Decision Date: 04 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bowie (No 1) involved the prosecution of the defendant, Bowie, for the murder of an unidentified victim. The body was never found, leading to a trial where the prosecution sought to introduce expert opinion evidence regarding the capacity of pigs to devour a human cadaver without leaving a trace. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues the court had to address were primarily focused on the admissibility of the expert evidence. This included whether the evidence pertained to a field of specialised knowledge, whether the opinion was based on such knowledge, and whether the reliability of the opinion was pertinent to its admissibility. The court also considered whether the experiment conducted with porcine and kangaroo carcasses was relevant to the capacity of pigs to consume a human body.

The court found that the expert evidence was relevant to the issues in the trial, as it pertained to a field of specialised knowledge. However, the court concluded that the opinion was not based on this specialised knowledge because the experiment involved different types of carcasses. The court held that the reliability of the opinion was a relevant consideration in determining the admissibility of the expert evidence. As a result, the opinion was deemed inadmissible due to its lack of reliability and relevance.

The court's final orders were not explicitly stated in the text, but it was implied that the inadmissibility of the expert evidence would impact the trial's proceedings, potentially affecting the outcome of the case against Bowie.

Orders