The Court admitted post-event testing evidence (reconstructing conditions of a workplace incident involving falling sandstone blocks) as relevant to the foreseeability of the pleaded risk, notwithstanding significant differences between testing and incident conditions, holding that while the weight of such evidence may ultimately be low, it was capable of rationally bearing on a fact in issue. The defendant director's opinion on the stability of the stones based on the testing was admitted as expert opinion grounded in his specialised knowledge as a civil engineer, but his statement of belief about what others could have foreseen was rejected as an inadmissible submission lacking foundation. The s 135 discretionary exclusion argument failed because the probative value, though potentially low, was not outweighed by the prejudice to the prosecutor.
The full text is available to signed-in members.