R v Hart (No 2)

In the case of R v Hart, the respondent was charged with a number of sexual offences. The respondent sought an adjournment to enable the respondent to obtain expert evidence from a forensic pathologist to counter evidence from the Crown's expert. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The issues before the court were whether the expert evidence was necessary, whether the evidence was likely to be persuasive, and whether the adjournment was necessary to enable the respondent to obtain the evidence. The court held that the expert evidence was necessary, and that the adjournment was necessary to enable the respondent to obtain the evidence. The court also held that the evidence was likely to be persuasive, and granted the adjournment.

The court considered the provisions of the Uniform Evidence Acts, and the need to ensure that the respondent had a fair trial. The court held that it was necessary for the respondent to obtain expert evidence to counter the Crown's expert, and that the adjournment was necessary to enable the respondent to obtain the evidence. The court also held that the evidence was likely to be persuasive, and that the adjournment was necessary to ensure that the respondent had a fair trial. The court held that the adjournment was in the interests of justice, and granted the adjournment.