R v Farquharson

In the case of R v Farquharson, the applicant stood accused of murdering three children by driving a car into a dam, resulting in their drowning. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining several critical issues regarding the admissibility of expert evidence, the directions given to the jury, and the Crown's duty of disclosure. The central legal questions revolved around the admissibility of expert opinions and re-enactment evidence, the propriety of jury directions concerning consciousness of guilt, and the impact of non-disclosure by the Crown.

The court examined whether the judge correctly admitted the evidence of a specialist thoracic physician to negate the possibility of the applicant suffering from cough syncope before the incident, as well as an engineering opinion about the car's control and movements. The admissibility of accident re-enactment evidence and computer simulations to illustrate the vehicle's path into the dam was also scrutinized. The Court of Appeal held that the judge did not err in admitting this evidence, finding no abuse of discretion and confirming its relevance to the case.

The court further assessed the judge's directions to the jury regarding the expert evidence and the applicant's post-incident conversations, which were offered as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The Court of Appeal found that the judge should have provided more explicit instructions to the jury about the necessity to be satisfied of the content of the pre-incident conversations and the parts the applicant sought to conceal. Additionally, the court considered the Crown's failure to disclose that a key witness faced pending charges, finding it did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the verdict remained safe and satisfactory despite conflicting expert opinions.