Expert evidence that an accused cannot be excluded as having made foot impressions is admissible even in the absence of a statistical database as to the frequency of the relevant characteristics, provided the evidence is confined to non-exclusion rather than expressing a probability. The absence of frequency data goes to discretionary exclusion, not admissibility. The 'white coat effect' does not arise where expert evidence is not overly technical, does not use impressive medical or scientific expressions, and the limitations of the evidence are explained to the jury. When considering a no-jury order under s 615 of the Criminal Code, a judge does not err by having regard to the significance of jury trial in the particular type of case being tried, provided this does not amount to articulating a general rule of preference for jury trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.