The King v Wasaga (No 2)

[2024] NTSC 98

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Advance ruling as to admissibility of evidence
4. › Whether expert evidence was admissible
5. › Whether Defence had reasonable and sufficient notice of the substance of expert evidence
6. › Common law duty on the prosecution to disclosure documents which are material
7. › Common law duty must be discharged with the object of fairness in mind
8. › Content of the common law duty as applied to expert evidence.
1. Criminal Law
2. › Application to discharge the jury
3. › Application founded on submissions made by the Crown in the closing address
4. › Whether there was a high degree of necessity for the jury’s discharge
5. › Closing address did not necessitate to a high degree the jury’s discharge
6. › Whether summing up could overcome any adverse impact upon the fairness of the trial for the accused
7. › Summing up could overcome any adverse impact
8. › Application dismissed.
1. BD v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 2; (2017) 40 NTLR 1, Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; (1996) 186 CLR 427, Hogan v Rigby (2020) 352 FLR 93, IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; (2016) 257 CLR 300, MLW v The Queen [2022] NTCCA 2, The Queen v Higgins (1994) 71 A Crim R 429, The Queen v [name withheld] (unreported, VCCA, 2 March 1994) referred to.
1. Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (‘ENULA’) s 79.