Citation: R v Patterson (No 4) [2024] NSWSC 456
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 April 2024
Judge: Dhanji J
Background
This decision arises from a criminal proceeding before the Supreme Court. The matter involved expert psychiatric evidence to be called by both the Crown and the accused, with three psychiatrists in total: Professor Greenberg for the Crown, and Dr Ellis and Dr Farrar for the accused.
All parties agreed that concurrent evidence was the most efficient and effective means of presenting the expert testimony. The court was asked to formalise that arrangement by making an order and providing detailed procedural directions to govern how the concurrent evidence would unfold.
Legal Issues
- Whether the court should order that three expert witnesses give evidence concurrently pursuant to s 275C of the Criminal Procedure Act 1996 (NSW)
- What procedural directions should govern the concurrent evidence process, including the sequence of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination
Decision
Dhanji J accepted the parties' joint position that concurrent expert evidence was both desirable and appropriate, and made an order under s 275C of the Criminal Procedure Act 1996 (NSW) accordingly. The order named all three psychiatrists as subject to the concurrent evidence arrangement.
The court issued detailed directions to structure the process. The three experts were to be sworn in immediately one after another. Professor Greenberg would then give evidence-in-chief on a topic introduced by the Crown, while the defence experts were seated in the courtroom, visible to the jury.
At the conclusion of each topic covered by Professor Greenberg, the defence would call its own experts in a chosen order to address that same topic. This cycle would continue until all evidence-in-chief was complete. Cross-examination of Professor Greenberg by the defence, and his re-examination by the Crown if needed, would then follow. The defence experts would subsequently be recalled for cross-examination and, where necessary, re-examination.
Orders Made
- An order pursuant to s 275C of the Criminal Procedure Act 1996 (NSW) that Professor Greenberg, Dr Ellis, and Dr Farrar give evidence concurrently
- Directions governing the sequence of sworn-in appearances, topic-by-topic evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination of each expert
Key Takeaways
- Section 275C of the Criminal Procedure Act 1996 (NSW) provides a statutory mechanism for ordering concurrent expert evidence in criminal proceedings, and the Supreme Court applied it here on the joint application of both parties.
- A topic-by-topic structure was adopted, with the Crown's expert addressing each topic first and the accused's experts responding in turn before moving to the next topic.
- Where all parties agree that concurrent expert evidence is the most efficient approach, the court is willing to accommodate that agreement and formalise it with a s 275C order and accompanying procedural directions.
- The arrangement required defence experts to be seated in a visible part of the courtroom during the Crown expert's evidence-in-chief, ensuring transparency for the jury throughout the process.
- This is a short procedural judgment; its significance is limited to the specific directions made in this trial and does not establish any broader legal principle beyond the application of the existing statutory framework.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Criminal Procedure Act 1996 (NSW), s 275C
Cases cited: None cited in the judgment.