R v Sood (Ruling No 3)

In the ruling of R v Sood, the Crown prosecuted the accused, Sood, for the unlawful administration and supply of a drug with the intent to procure a miscarriage, as well as manslaughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around various legal questions regarding the admissibility and application of certain pieces of evidence during the trial.

The primary legal issues the court was tasked with resolving included whether the Crown should be permitted to submit written legal contentions during the opening of the trial, the interpretation of the term "unlawfully" as defined in section 83 of the Crimes Act 1990, the proportionality test for manslaughter by criminal negligence, the duty of care owed to a child once born alive, and the admissibility of expert medical opinion evidence. Additionally, the court needed to determine the conditions under which cross-examination of prosecution witnesses by the Crown would be allowed, the admissibility of medical reports prepared for other purposes, and the relevance of evidence pertaining to the credibility of the accused and the facts asserted.

The court ruled that the Crown could provide written legal contentions during the trial opening, provided they were relevant to the issues at hand. It interpreted the term "unlawfully" to require a demonstration of unlawful intent or knowledge. The court established that a proportionality test for manslaughter by criminal negligence should be applied, and that a duty of care was owed to a child once born alive. The court allowed the Crown to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and found that expert medical opinion evidence could be admitted if the expertise was established. However, the use of a medical report prepared for the Health Care Complaints Commission was deemed inadmissible unless certain conditions were met. The court also held that the conduct of counsel during the trial could not be used to infer a consciousness of guilt on the part of the accused. Ultimately, the trial proceeded with a jury of eleven following the discharge of one juror on medical grounds.