The Court held that a medical 'impression' recorded in hospital notes could not be adduced through a forensic pathologist in re-examination as expert evidence. The recorded impression was not an 'opinion' (being a preliminary view rather than an inference from observed data), lacked demonstrated reasoning based on specialised knowledge as required by s 79 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), and the witness had no personal knowledge of the matters in the notes. The Court confirmed that while medical notes may satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule under s 69, expert opinion content within those records must independently satisfy s 79, and even if admissible, the evidence would have been excluded under s 137 given its minimal probative value and the danger of unfair prejudice.
The full text is available to signed-in members.