R v Hawi (No 24)

In the case of R v Hawi (No 24), the respondent, Hawi, appealed against his conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon. The dispute centred on the admissibility and relevancy of expert evidence provided by a fingerprint expert, who opined that a fingerprint found on the weapon belonged to Hawi. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appeal raised questions about the criteria for admitting expert opinion evidence and whether such evidence is relevant when it is based on specialised knowledge. The court was required to determine whether the evidence was relevant and whether the expert's opinion was admissible under the relevant rules of evidence.

The court considered the nature of expert evidence and the criteria for its admissibility. It examined the basis of the expert's opinion, whether it was founded on specialised knowledge, and whether it was relevant to the facts of the case. The court found that the expert's opinion was based on specialised knowledge, but it was not relevant to the issue of identification as it did not assist the trier of fact in determining whether the fingerprint belonged to Hawi. The court held that the expert evidence was not relevant and, therefore, inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court determined that the expert evidence was not relevant to the issue of identification and that the trial judge had erred in admitting it. The court also noted that the error was not trivial and had the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial.