Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122
The appellant was convicted of armed robbery. At trial, the prosecution called an anatomy professor who gave opinion evidence comparing anatomical features visible in CCTV footage of the offender with photographs of the appellant, concluding they were consistent with being the same person. The appellant argued this evidence did not qualify as expert opinion evidence admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
1. Whether the anatomical comparison opinion evidence was admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) as wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge gained from training, study or experience. 2. Whether the witness's opinion was properly distinguished from the jury's own capacity to make the same observations.
The High Court unanimously held that the anatomical comparison evidence was not admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because the opinions expressed were not wholly or substantially based on the witness's specialised knowledge, and the conviction was set aside.
Opinion evidence is admissible under s 79 of the uniform Evidence Acts only if it is wholly or substantially based on the witness's specialised knowledge derived from training, study or experience; where an expert does no more than apply ordinary human observation to material equally available to the jury, the opinion does not satisfy that requirement and is inadmissible.
The Court observed that even a person with genuine specialised anatomical knowledge may give inadmissible opinion evidence if, in a particular case, the opinion expressed is not actually derived from or dependent upon that knowledge but instead rests on the same lay comparison any juror could perform unaided.
Honeysett is the leading High Court authority on the threshold requirement that expert opinion evidence under the uniform Evidence Acts must be wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge, and it has substantially curtailed the use of anatomical or morphological comparison evidence by experts in criminal proceedings in Australia.
Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122Read the full judgment on AustLII. Brief written by caselaw editors using AGLC 4th ed.