R v Hawkins (No 7)

In this matter, the accused, Hawkins, faced trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria on charges of attempted murder and assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm. The dispute hinged on the admissibility of certain evidence provided by a forensic psychiatrist. The trial judge had to decide whether to admit parts of the psychiatrist's report that were not strictly based on expert opinion but rather on the psychiatrist's belief.

The primary legal issue was whether the parts of the expert report that were not founded on expert opinion, but instead on the psychiatrist's personal belief, were admissible. The court had to balance the probative value of this evidence against any prejudicial effect it might have on the trial. The defence argued that the entire report should be admitted as it was relevant to the accused's state of mind, while the prosecution contended that only evidence based on expert opinion should be allowed.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the parts of the expert report that were not based on expert opinion, but rather on the psychiatrist's personal belief, were inadmissible. The court found that such evidence could potentially mislead the jury and therefore was prejudicial. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between expert opinion and personal belief in expert testimony. The evidence in question was excluded, and the trial proceeded without it.