R v Singh (No 6) - [2021] NSWSC 213

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Singh (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 213
Hearing dates: 4 and 10 March 2021
Decision date: 11 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
See [42]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — application to exclude evidence – expert opinion under s 79 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – facts on which opinion is based – whether opinion within area of specialised knowledge – held, evidence inadmissible

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 55, 56, 76, 79, 102, 137

Cases Cited:
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122; [2014] HCA 29
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kulwinder Singh (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Hogan (Crown)
Ms M Cunneen SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/00330134

Judgment

The accused, Kulwinder Singh, is charged with the murder of his wife. His trial commenced before me and a jury of twelve on 18 February 2021.
On 4 March 2021, the Crown sought to adduce expert evidence from Professor Maitz regarding burns suffered by the deceased and the accused. Professor Maitz is an expert in the treatment of severe burns. Objection was made on behalf of the accused to one aspect of Professor Maitz’ evidence concerning the severity of the burns suffered by the accused. These are my reasons for excluding one discrete part of the evidence of Professor Maitz.

Crown case

The Crown case is that Mr Singh murdered his wife, Parwinder Kaur, on 2 December 2013 by setting her on fire in the laundry of their home. It is alleged that he put some petrol on her clothing, waited about 5-10 minutes (or possibly more) and then ignited her with a cigarette lighter. It is then alleged that he followed her outside the laundry door, down the side of the house and onto the driveway at which time he was observed by neighbours to be attempting to pat out the flames with his hands. Ms Kaur died on 3 December 2013 from injuries sustained in the fire.
The defence case is that the couple had been having an ongoing dispute about the deceased’s reluctance to contribute to their joint mortgage. There is evidence that on at least two occasions the deceased diverted her pay into another account to give to her family, leaving the accused to pay off their joint mortgage by himself. The accused says he repeatedly asked her to contribute. On 2 December 2013, he again asked her to contribute and when she refused, he told her he was going to move in with his mother for a few days, hoping that this might resolve the issue.
The accused told police that he then packed up his suitcases and made a few trips to his car from the main bedroom on…

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 Singh (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Singh (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 213
Case: [2021] NSWSC 213
Decision Date: 11 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Singh (No 6), the defendant, Singh, was facing criminal charges in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute was whether expert opinion evidence should be excluded under section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The court was tasked with determining if the expert opinion was based on facts that were within the expert’s area of specialised knowledge and whether the evidence was ultimately admissible. The expert in question was asked to provide an opinion based on a series of facts that were central to the prosecution's case.

The court was required to assess whether the expert's opinion was reliable and relevant, considering the foundational facts upon which the opinion was based. Specifically, the court needed to determine if these facts fell within the expert's area of specialised knowledge, as required by the statutory provisions. The central issue was whether the expert's opinion could be considered reliable and relevant if the foundational facts were not within the expert's area of expertise.

The court concluded that the expert's opinion was not admissible because it was based on facts that were outside the expert's area of specialised knowledge. The foundational facts were not within the scope of the expert's expertise, and therefore, the opinion could not be deemed reliable or relevant. The court held that the expert's opinion did not meet the threshold requirements set by section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Consequently, the evidence was excluded from being presented to the jury.

The final orders of the court were that the expert opinion evidence was inadmissible and could not be presented to the jury in the case of R v Singh (No 6). This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that expert opinions are based on facts that are within the expert's area of specialised knowledge, as per the statutory requirements.

Orders