This week the High Court handed down judgment in a matter dealing with expert evidence this week: 𝘓𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘷 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘦𝘦𝘯 [2023] HCA 29.

The Court endorsed the 𝘔𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘷 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘴 requirement that an expert opinion must be demonstrated to be the product of the application of the specialised knowledge of the expert – but said that that the requirement was “not absolute” [at 12].

The High Court identified “a distinction touched on but not elaborated upon” in 𝘔𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘵𝘢, between “a question as to whether a process of reasoning engaged in by an expert is sufficient to demonstrate that his or her opinion is the product of the application of specialised knowledge and the question of the extent to which a process of reasoning engaged in by an expert through the application of specialised knowledge is clear and convincing.” [15].

In the present case the question was “whether the process of reasoning disclosed by [the forensic scientist’s] testimony was sufficient to demonstrate that his opinion…was the product of his application of the specialised knowledge.”[19]

There was “difficulty appreciating [his] evidence…merely from the transcript” because it appeared “that English may not be his first language” [20] but it was “clear enough from his cross-examination in the pre-trial hearing that what he was saying was that he had engaged in a process of inductive reasoning which involved applying his knowledge…to observed features…to form a conclusion.”[21]

The appeal was dismissed.