Criminal law – Murder – Self-defence – Provocation – Evidence – Relationship evidence – Admissibility – Admissible on question of intent – Not admissible as propensity evidence – Expert evidence – Evidence that knife wounds were self-inflicted – Whether a matter for expert evidence – Whether witnesses qualified as experts – Evidence shown to have no proper foundation after being admitted – Trial judge’s refusal to withdraw evidence from jury – Conflict in expert evidence – Jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the correctness of the preferred evidence: R v ANDERSON, COURT OF APPEAL | Anti Cyber Forensics

Home > Breach of Expert Duties, Case Law Studies, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Limitations to The Immunity Rule > Criminal law – Murder – Self-defence – Provocation – Evidence – Relationship evidence – Admissibility – Admissible on question of intent – Not admissible as propensity evidence – Expert evidence – Evidence that knife wounds were self-inflicted – Whether a matter for expert evidence – Whether witnesses qualified as experts – Evidence shown to have no proper foundation after being admitted – Trial judge’s refusal to withdraw evidence from jury – Conflict in expert evidence – Jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the correctness of the preferred evidence: R v ANDERSON, COURT OF APPEAL

Criminal law – Murder – Self-defence – Provocation – Evidence – Relationship evidence – Admissibility – Admissible on question of intent – Not admissible as propensity evidence – Expert evidence – Evidence that knife wounds were self-inflicted – Whether a matter for expert evidence – Whether witnesses qualified as experts – Evidence shown to have no proper foundation after being admitted – Trial judge’s refusal to withdraw evidence from jury – Conflict in expert evidence – Jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the correctness of the preferred evidence: R v ANDERSON, COURT OF APPEAL

February 5, 2010 The Mathematical Theory of Nothing Leave a comment Go to comments

R v ANDERSON (2000) 1 VR 1

(c) 1998 Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited trading as Butterworths
VICTORIAN REPORTED JUDGMENTS
R v ANDERSON

COURT OF APPEAL
(2000) 1 VR 1
5 August 1999; 25 February 2000
25 February 2000
CATCHWORDS: Criminal law – Murder – Self-defence – Provocation – Evidence – Relationship evidence – Admissibility – Admissible on question of intent – Not admissible as propensity evidence – Expert evidence – Evidence that knife wounds were self-inflicted – Whether a matter for expert evidence – Whether witnesses qualified as experts – Evidence shown to have no proper foundation after being admitted – Trial judge’s refusal to withdraw evidence from jury – Conflict in expert evidence – Jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the correctness of the preferred evidence – (VIC) Crimes Act 1958 (No 6231) s 568(1).

HEADNOTES:
The accused was charged with the murder of a woman with whom he had had a volatile and at times violent relationship over a number of years. There had been an altercation between them in which the deceased suffered knife wounds to various parts of her body and head wounds inflicted by blows. The accused also had a number of stab wounds. In the accused’s record of interview with the police he said that the deceased had attacked him, stabbing him and that he had retaliated but without meaning to kill her. The record of interview also contained an account of the relationship between the deceased and the accused which was favourable to the accused. At the trial the Crown led evidence, over objection, of the relationship which showed that the accused had assaulted, threatened and abused the deceased. The trial judge admitted this evidence on the basis that it was relevant to the jury’s consideration of the issues to be raised in the case, particularly those related to the accused’s state of mind at the time of the alleged offence. The judge directed the jury that they could use this evidence to understand the relationship between the accused and the deceased and the background to the events in question, to assist them to understand what was then in the minds of the accused and the deceased. He gave a strong propensity warning about it.

The defence relied on self-defence and provocation. The Crown’s primary contention was that the accused’s wounds were self-inflicted. Over objection, the trial judge admitted expert evidence from three prosecution witnesses on this question. They were the doctor who initially examined the accused, the surgeon who subsequently treated him and a forensic specialist. The doctor and the surgeon both expressed the opinion that the wounds were self-inflicted. Neither had undertaken any study of characteristics and patterns of wounds. The doctor admitted his examination of the accused had been brief. The surgeon said his conclusion had been based on the downward angulation of the abdominal wounds. But the forensic specialist said that was not conclusive and his evidence was equivocal on whether the wounds were self-inflicted. A forensic specialist called by the defence expressed the opinion that the accused’s wounds were not self-inflicted. The trial judge rejected defence counsel’s request for a direction to the jury to disregard the evidence of the doctor and the surgeon and told the jury it was for them to determine which of the experts they preferred.

The accused was convicted and sought leave to appeal against conviction on the grounds that the relationship evidence should not have been admitted, that the judge misdirected the jury on it and that the expert evidence should not have been admitted, should have been withdrawn from the jury after being admitted and that the judge misdirected the jury on it.

Held, granting leave to appeal and allowing the appeal: (1) The relationship evidence led by the Crown was properly admitted as relevant to a fact in issue in the trial, bearing on the state of mind of the accused at the relevant time and upon the issues of self-defence and provocation. It was also made relevant by the admission into evidence of the accused’s account of the relationship in his record of interview. Given the accused’s admission that he stabbed the deceased and the judge’s strong propensity warning to the jury, there was no danger that they had used the evidence for the impermissible purpose of demonstrating that the accused was the sort of person likely to have committed the crime charged. [30]-[38].

Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334; R v Ritter (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 31 August 1995); R v Peake (1996) 67 SASR 297, applied.

R v Tektonopoulos [1999] 2 VR 412, referred to.

Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, distinguished.

(2) The trial judge’s direction to the jury on the relationship evidence did not contain any material misdirection, although it might have gone further in telling the jury how they could use the evidence. [39], [40].

(3) Accepting that there is an organised body of knowledge, based on the study of the characteristics and patterns of wounds, from which one may infer by comparison with recognised standards that particular wounds are self-inflicted, the evidence of the opinions of the doctor and the surgeon should not have been admitted in this case. Neither of those witnesses had shown himself to be qualified to express an opinion in the field of expertise and neither had demonstrated any factual or scientific foundation for the opinions expressed. [55], [58], [68]-[72].

Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486, referred to.

(4) The trial judge should have directed the jury to disregard the opinions of the doctor and the surgeon after it had become clear there was no proper foundation for them. [59], [60], [73].

(5) Furthermore, the judge misdirected the jury on the expert evidence by simply telling them it was for them to determine which of the expert witnesses they preferred. Given the conflict in the expert evidence and that it went to the critical issue which would conclude the guilt of the accused, the jury should have been told that they could only prefer the opinions of certain witnesses to those of others if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the former opinions were correct. [61].

(6) The introduction of the inadmissible opinion evidence deprived the accused of a fair chance of an acquittal and the proviso to s 568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 could not be applied. [62]-[65], [75].

JUDGES: WINNEKE P, PHILLIPS and CHERNOV JJA

JUDGMENTS: Winneke P.

Facts

At about 12.15 in the morning of Sunday, 2 April 1995, the applicant Warren Anderson (then aged 32 years) appeared at the front door of the police station at 9 Patrick Street, Stawell, a country town in the Wimmera region of Victoria. He was seen by Senior Sergeant Mintern-Lane. The applicant said “Help me — I’ve been stabbed.” He was wearing socks, but no shoes. He also said “She’s worse; she’s at 180 Main Street.” Mintern-Lane asked to see his wounds and the applicant lifted his shirt. Upon further questioning he also said that “She started it, and I threw the knife on the footpath”. Mintern-Lane took the applicant out to his car and put him in the passenger seat. The police officer then drove the applicant to the Stawell Hospital.

At a time which appears to have been approximate to that at which the applicant appeared at the police station, one Cherie Cameron saw some men assisting a woman out of the doorway of the premises at 180 Main Street near a phone box adjacent to those premises. The woman, as it later appeared, was Kim Bauer, the girlfriend of the applicant, who had been badly injured and was suffering from knife wounds to various parts of the body. She was also suffering from head wounds inflicted by blows. Cameron was asked to call an ambulance. She did so from the phone box. The ambulance driver, one Rice, said the call was received at 12.18 am. Rice arrived at the scene at 12.23 am where he saw Bauer lying on the pavement of Main Street near the telephone box. Cameron was seeking to assist her. There were a large number of people gathered around them. He made an assessment of the condition of the injured woman, which led him to believe that she was in a critical state. He then put her in the ambulance and took her to the Stawell Hospital. Cameron accompanied them. When they arrived at the hospital, the applicant was already there.

Subsequent inquiries by the police revealed that there had been an altercation between Kim Bauer and the applicant in Bauer’s premises at 180 Main Street at some time between 11.50 pm on 1 April 1995 and 12.15 am on the following morning. Those times were fixed by Sergeant Mintern-Lane because he had seen Kim Bauer enter the Commercial Hotel, which was opposite the Main Street entrance to the premises at 180 Main Street, at 11.50 pm. Bauer had apparently come to the hotel to buy a packet of chips. Mintern-Lane had seen her leave the hotel and enter the premises at 180 Main Street immediately before he left the hotel to return to the police station.

Bauer’s premises at 180 Main Street were a subterranean flat underneath the building which was on the corner of Main Street and Patrick Street, Stawell. The flat had two entrances; one from Main Street via a staircase which led into the loungeroom of the flat; the other from Patrick Street via a staircase which led to the kitchen of the flat. It was apparent that the deceased had been assisted from the flat via the former entrance while the applicant had removed himself from the premises through the Patrick Street entrance. No one saw him leave, but the knife which he told Mintern-Lane he had “thrown on the footpath”, was later found there outside the Patrick Street entrance.

Although Bauer was still alive when she was taken to the Stawell Hospital early in the morning of 2 April, she died whilst being treated. The pathologist gave evidence that she had the following injuries:

— a small injury to the centre of the forehead consistent with it striking something “blunt”;

— a blackened left eye and injuries to the lower and upper lips consistent with the receipt of a punch or punches;

— superficial skin loss under the chin;

— penetrating injuries to the upper left chest (1.5 cm deep), right nipple (2 cm deep), right side of chest, front wall of stomach, right leg and lower left back, all consistent with knife wounds. These wounds had caused severe internal bleeding;

— bruises to the right forehead, left temporal region, left parietal region and left side of the back of the head, one of which had caused a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage.

The pathologist expressed the opinion that death had ensued as a result of the head injuries and stab wounds to chest, abdomen and back. In cross-examination he agreed that, if the deceased had suffered only the head injuries it was “less likely” that she would have died but that the stab wounds would have inevitably led to death without immediate treatment. The doctor who treated her at the Stawell Hospital expressed the opinion that the cause of death was the loss of blood from the stab wounds, not the sub-arachnoid haemorrhage.

The applicant was briefly examined whilst he was at the Stawell Hospital by Dr Robert Castle, the Director of Medical Services at the hospital. Castle described his examination of the applicant variously as “very brief”, “quick”, “hurried” and “very rapid”. He did not notice all his wounds, but formed the opinion that the applicant’s general condition was “quite satisfactory”. He asked the applicant how they occurred and the applicant replied “She did them”. He said that because one of the wounds “looked a little deeper than the others and . . . had probably penetrated the abdominal wall”, he referred the applicant to the Wimmera Base Hospital.

Whilst he was at the Stawell Hospital, the applicant was also spoken to by Constable Polglase of the Stawell police. The applicant and Polglase were acquainted. Polglase said that the applicant had said to him: “Polly, it’s not my fault, she knows that; she wanted me here.”

The ambulance officer, Rice, also spoke to the applicant at the Stawell Hospital whilst he was being examined by a Dr O’Brien. Although he had forgotten exactly what he had asked the applicant, Rice said that the applicant had told them that the deceased “had attacked him with a poker” and that he had punched and knocked her down the stairs. He also said that when O’Brien had asked the applicant what he knew of the injuries to the deceased, he had replied “I stabbed her”. O’Brien gave no evidence of this conversation. Following the examination to which I have referred, Rice transported the applicant to the Wimmera Base Hospital where he was treated by Dr Ian Campbell.

Campbell saw the applicant at about 2.20 am on 2 April 1995 at the Wimmera Hospital. He said the applicant was conscious and alert. The applicant told him that he had been in a “domestic fight” and that he had been stabbed by “the girl”. He examined the applicant and found that he had a number of stab wounds. There was a wound over the right chest above the bottom of the rib cage. There were two more on the right side of the rib cage, two below the umbilicus in the stomach region, two on the left flank, one on the inner aspect of the left thigh and two on the outer aspect of the left thigh. The doctor regarded the wounds to the thigh as “entry” and “exit” wounds. The wound in the chest had penetrated to the ribs with no damage to the underlying bone. Each of the wounds below the umbilicus had penetrated the peritoneal cavity; one of these had gone into the small bowel. The wound was not “life-threatening” but it would have been if it had gone further into the bowel. One of the thigh wounds was some 5 or 6 cm deep which meant it had penetrated to the depth of the thigh bone. He described the wounds to the stomach area and the thigh as requiring a “moderate degree of force”. Campbell said that he had admitted the applicant to the theatre and, under general anaesthetic, had explored and treated the wounds. He said that he noted that the inferior epigastric artery had been cut and was sutured. He had also noted that there were “shallow” cuts to the knuckles of the left hand — obviously made by a sharp object. He also found what he called “scratches” down the right forearm which did not need stitching.

Over objection by applicant’s trial counsel, the learned judge permitted both Castle and Campbell to express opinions to the jury that the wounds to the applicant had been “self-inflicted”. Because this was an issue which was central to the applicant’s defence, the admission of this opinion evidence, and the directions given in respect of it, will have to be revisited hereafter.

At about 1 pm on 3 April 1995, Sergeant Rovis of the Homicide Squad conducted a “video recorded” interview with the applicant at the Wimmera Base Hospital. At the time when this interview was conducted Kim Bauer had died. The record of the interview ultimately became the focal point of the applicant’s defence at his trial, because he gave no evidence of the events which had occurred between himself and the deceased at the premises in Main Street on the evening of 1 April 1995. In the course of the interview, the applicant traced at some length the relationship which had existed between himself and the deceased over a period of some two and a half years before the incident as a result of which the deceased had met her death. The relationship had commenced in Darwin where the applicant had lived and worked since 1985 and where the deceased had lived since the late 1980s, having moved there from Stawell. The applicant said that he had first met the deceased in or about 1989 when she was working as a receptionist for a transport company and he was working as a transport driver. The initial acquaintance was short lived, but it was resumed in or about the beginning of 1993 when they commenced a relationship which continued, subject to periodic interruptions, until the deceased met her death. It was not in dispute that the relationship was a volatile one characterised by periodic outbursts of verbal and physical disputation. In his interview the applicant had put a slant on the relationship which was favourable to himself. It was his contention that the deceased was constantly reproaching him for slovenly habits and his failure to take steps to improve himself. He described the deceased as a person who was egocentric and quick to take offence; and who was prepared to resort to physical violence against him if and when it suited her purposes. Thus, he claimed, she had assaulted him in Darwin with her fists, causing injury to his head; and on another occasion had taken to him with a shovel causing injury to his leg. It is fair to say, I think, that he had painted himself as a person who exercised restraint, whilst being unable to understand what she wanted of him. Paradoxically, he stated that there was a strong and magnetic bond of affection and mutual attraction which drew them together. He said that despite the fact that they had separated following a difference of opinion in late 1994, when the deceased had left him and returned to Stawell, it was not long before she was writing to him and making telephone calls entreating him to join her in Stawell. Contrary to what he described as his “better instincts” he had relented, given up his job, and travelled to Stawell to resume the relationship. Once there, he said, he was again taunted by the deceased who continued to be critical of him, his habits and his station in life. In the course of the interview he was asked about an incident which had occurred between them on 19 February, some five to six weeks before her death, following which she had sought an “intervention order” against him. He said that he had not started the incident but had been prepared to “shut his mouth” and “take the rap” for it. Although he had been angry with her, and had hit her, he was only “trying to wake her up to what she was doing”. Despite the intervention order they had continued to see each other and to cohabit from time to time.

With regard to the events which occurred on the night of 1 April 1995 the applicant told the police that he and the deceased had been out to dinner with friends. They had a “quiet” night and had drunk very little. He said that, whilst at the friends’ place, the deceased had acted “real cocky” and had “made herself the centre of attention”. They had left at about midnight and he had driven them, in her car, to Main Street. He went into the bedroom and “started making the bed”. She came in and commenced to “bad-mouth” him. He said that he walked out into the loungeroom, put his head in his hands and leaned against the wall by the fireplace. The next thing he knew she had hit him “around the back” with a poker. He turned around and grabbed her; he did not feel “any real pain” — it was “just the shock of her hitting me with it”. He had tried to “take the poker off her” and she “put up a fight”. In order to take the poker from her, he punched her in the face with his left fist. She fell onto a beanbag in the loungeroom and started to lash out at him with her feet. He walked away and she followed him, pushing him in the back. He then started to walk up the stairs towards the Main Street entrance and she again following him yelling “You’re a cunt.” He got to the door but she pulled him back. He “slid” down the stairs. He said he went into the kitchen “to get away from her” but she followed him in there yelling “You’re an arsehole”. She then grabbed a knife “out of one of those Wiltshire stay sharp things” and “came lunging” at him. He tried to “get it off her” and punched her in the head again. She struck him with the knife in the stomach area and the leg. He tried to push her off and “get the knife off her”. He could not say how many times she struck him because it all happened so quickly. He got cuts on his hands trying to get the knife from her. She was screaming at him and calling him a “low-life”. He could “feel the knife going in and out a few times”. Although he was facing her he did not see her pick up the knife and presumed she had taken it from its container on a shelf. He said he was “stunned” because he could not believe that the deceased was trying to kill him. Ultimately he said that he knocked the knife out of her hand by hitting her arm. The knife fell to the ground and he picked it up. He said that she was laughing at him and mocking him. She said “I’ve got you now, that’s what everybody wanted.” He then said to her: “Leave me alone; just get an ambulance.” She said: “No, fucking die.” The applicant then said that he had “just lunged at her with the knife and gave it to her”. He said that he “did not want to”, but that he had “had a gut full”. He further said that the deceased had continued to taunt him by smirking at him and saying “You’re going to die.” He had then said: “I’m sick and tired of this — if I’m going, you’re going.” He told the police he had “just let her have it”, when somebody walked in the door. He said he had struck her with the knife in the chest or the stomach but he could not say how many times. He said that the deceased was screaming and that someone had “kicked in” the kitchen door from the loungeroom. He had yelled “get her out of here” and a “couple of guys” had grabbed her and taken her out. He thought that there were three people who had come into the premises but he could only remember one “group” of people who had entered. He said that the deceased was hysterical when they took her through the lounge and up the stairs into Main Street. He had then gone out the other way into Patrick Street where he had dropped the knife into the gutter on his way to the police station. The entire “stabbing incident”, he said, had taken place in the kitchen; but that it was in the loungeroom where she had hit him with the poker and he had punched her twice to the head. He said that, as she had fallen on to the beanbag after he had punched her, she had struck her head on a glass vase which was on the mantelpiece.

Towards the end of the interview, the following exchange took place between Sergeant Rovis and the applicant:

Q — After you picked the knife up, you indicated she was looking at you, smirking and verbally abusing you — is that right? A — Yes.

Q — And you got angry? A — Yes.

Q — And you said to her if you were going to die so was she . . .? A — She said “you’re going to die” . . . and then said “That’s what I wanted” or something.

Q — Yes. What did you say? A — Well, “if I’m going so are you” because I had nothing to lose.

Q — And what was your intention when you grabbed the knife and lunged at her? A — Not to kill her.

Q — What was your intention? A — Just harm her.

Q — How did you want to harm her? A — Just to shock her into reality . . . I did not mean to kill her.

Q — Do you think that [stabbing her] 4 times is a reasonable way to shock her back into reality? A — Under those circumstances where I was . . . yes.

The applicant continued to say that he did not intend to kill the deceased but to “knock” some sense into her. He said that when he stabbed the deceased she was by the sink in the kitchen, but he again said that it had all happened so quickly that he could not be sure; and that they had been moving around an “island” table in the middle of the floor area.

Following the conclusion of the interview at about 4 pm on 3 April 1995, the applicant was told that he was going to be charged with the murder of the deceased.

The trial

The trial of the applicant took place in November and December 1997. It was in fact a re-trial, the applicant having initially been convicted by a Supreme Court jury at Horsham in May 1996. On appeal, this court quashed the conviction and directed a re-trial: R v Anderson (1997) 94 A Crim R 335. Upon the re-trial he was again convicted on 11 December 1997; and on 12 December the trial judge sentenced him to be imprisoned for a term of 17 years and to serve a minimum term of 14 years before being eligible for parole. This sentence was less favourable to the applicant than the one which he had received from the judge who had presided over the initial trial. Although the head term imposed was the same, the minimum term fixed by the judge at the first trial was two years less (namely 12 years) than the minimum term fixed at the re-trial.

The applicant has appealed against both conviction and the sentence imposed. Before turning to the grounds of appeal it is desirable to refer briefly to some of the evidence given at the trial and the cases made by both the prosecution and defence.

The evidence

The video-recorded interview between the police and the applicant was led in evidence by the Crown and, in the absence of evidence from the applicant, became the centrepiece of his defence. As became apparent from that interview the altercation between the applicant and the deceased had attracted the attention of bystanders who had been at the Commercial Hotel and who had entered the premises of the deceased. The bystanders had entered in two groups of three via the Main Street entrance which led into the loungeroom. The first group comprising Troy Johnson, Terri-Ann Grinham and Anthony Coles, had been attracted by screams coming from the premises. They had forced their way through the Main Street entrance and proceeded down the stairs into the loungeroom. In the adjoining kitchen they had seen the applicant, with a knife in his left hand, moving around the bench in the centre of the kitchen following the deceased. Johnson said that when he entered the kitchen, his two friends were behind him. When he had seen the applicant with the knife he had turned and run out of the flat. He said that when he had looked into the kitchen the applicant and the deceased stopped moving. Although Johnson said that he could not say whether the screaming was that of a male or female, the other two witnesses said it was a female voice screaming for help. Miss Grinham had said that she had looked into the kitchen and seen the deceased with “blood all over her”. The witnesses said that, in the glimpse which they had of the events, they saw nothing in the gait of the applicant which suggested that he was limping, nor did they see blood on his clothing. One said that he had blood on his face.

Almost immediately after the first “group of three” had removed themselves from the flat, the second group (Steven Lyons, Neill Pascall and Darren Supple) had entered. They too went through the door from the loungeroom into the kitchen. Supple said that he was the first to enter and, when he did, both the applicant and the deceased “froze”. The applicant had the knife in his hand and the deceased, who was covered with blood, was grabbed either by him or Pascall. She was able to walk with them “unassisted”. Pascall said that the applicant was wearing “dark” clothing (in fact a black T-shirt and jeans) and had a “large amount of blood” on his right and left hands and forearms. He saw no blood on his clothing and, according to him, was screaming “get her out of here”. He said that, from the way in which the applicant was moving, he did not appear to be injured. Having removed the deceased from the kitchen, he closed the kitchen door. They then took the deceased up the stairs into Main Street where she collapsed.

Maxwell Jones, a forensic scientist from the Victorian Forensic Science Centre, went to the flat during the afternoon of 2 April. He gave evidence of his observation of blood stains and his analysis of them. He observed blood from the applicant on the footpath in Patrick Street and blood from the deceased on the footpath in Main Street. In the kitchen he found “spattered blood” on the cups and glasses on a shelf above the sink and on the cupboard below the sink. This, he said, was blood from both the applicant and the deceased. On the architrave of the door leading to the loungeroom he found a blood smear from the applicant. He also found some droplets of the applicant’s blood on the floor near the exit to Patrick Street. On the island bench and the stools around it, he found droplets of blood from both the applicant and the deceased. He also examined the handle of the knife. There was blood there which comprised a mixture of blood of both the applicant and the deceased. In the loungeroom he found blood stains from both the applicant and the deceased. Most of it was in the corner between the coffee table and the fireplace. Blood from each of them was on the floor; there was a spatter of the deceased’s blood on the beanbag and an “arc of cast-off blood” coming from the applicant leading up the wall and onto the ceiling. He found a mixture of blood from each of them near the handle of the poker, a mixture of the blood of each near the tip of the poker and blood from the deceased in the mid-shaft of the poker. He found smeared blood stains from the applicant at the bottom of the staircase leading to Main Street and on the wall some distance up those stairs. There was blood from the deceased on the floor and wall near the top of the stairs. There was hair from the deceased on the glass vase or “terrarium” on the floor of the lounge.

The Crown led a body of evidence which was descriptive of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased both in Darwin and at Stawell. This evidence painted a somewhat different picture of the relationship from the one given by the applicant to the police in his record of interview. Although the evidence had been led by the Crown without objection at the first trial, it was objected to by applicant’s trial counsel at the re-trial on the basis that it was evidence of prior criminal and discreditable conduct which ought to have been excluded because of its prejudice. The trial judge admitted the evidence on the basis that it was relevant to the jury’s consideration of the issues to be raised in the case, particularly those related to the state of mind of the applicant, and that, subject to proper directions, the cogency of the evidence required its admission. His Honour also took the view that the admissibility of the evidence was warranted by the fact that the applicant had, in his interview with the police, put the nature of the relationship in issue and that trial counsel for the applicant had indicated to him that he was not prepared to agree to an “editing” of the record to remove those answers.

It is, I think, unnecessary to refer at length to the nature of the “relationship evidence” which was led by the Crown. It was led through a number of witnesses who had known the applicant and the deceased in Darwin and Stawell. There was evidence from people who knew them in Darwin who said that they had seen the deceased with “black eyes” and bruises on face, arms and legs. One witness said that he had seen the applicant, in Darwin, kneeling on the deceased in the carport of the house at which they were living and punching her in the face. Another said that, on occasions, the applicant had become short-tempered with the deceased at gatherings and had on one occasion expressed his anger by “kicking a chair”. Yet another said that the applicant had told him that he “did not know what the deceased wanted from him” and that he had given her a “back-hander” at times. A witness from Stawell told the court that he had seen the applicant sitting on the stomach of the deceased on the floor of the flat which he shared with her. He, too, had seen her with bruises on her face and had called the police. A senior constable of police said that he had received this call to the deceased’s premises early in the morning of 19 February 1995 and had taken the applicant to the police station where the applicant told him that he and the deceased had had an argument and that he had become aggravated because he was “trying to express myself in certain ways and the only way I could get through to her was the way it ended up”. He said the way it “ended up” was by him throwing her against the wall, pushing her to the ground, pounding her head against the floor, shaking her and punching her. He said that he “did not want to do it” but “wanted her to listen to him”. The evidence indicated that, as a result of the assault on this day, the deceased had received facial injuries including two black eyes, bruising around forehead and cheeks and tenderness to the chest. There was also evidence that, as the consequence of this incident, an intervention order had been issued against the applicant. This evidence placed in context the description given of it by the applicant to the police in his record of interview.

The evidence was not all one way. In the presentation of his defence, the applicant called evidence from one Johannes Hermans who had known the applicant in Darwin. He also knew the deceased. He said that the applicant had shared premises with him for a substantial portion of 1993. He said that he had observed the applicant and the deceased together; that the deceased used to “niggle” the applicant about his posture, his smoking and his weight. He said that, at some stage during 1993, the applicant had left his premises and “moved in” with the deceased. Towards the end of the year, the applicant had, so the witness said, returned to New Zealand to see his family. Whilst he was away, he said that the deceased had “kept on ringing my place all hours of the night and day”, asking “Is the fucking bastard there?” He said that, on one occasion, the deceased had come around to his premises at 3 am and had forcefully tried to enter by pulling at the screen door. Whilst doing this she was yelling “Where’s the fucking bastard; I know he’s in there.” She then overturned the outdoor furniture. On another occasion, the witness said, he had gone, with the applicant, to the deceased’s premises to “pick up his (the applicant’s) gear”. This was after the applicant had returned from New Zealand. The applicant had called the police to assist them. Whilst there, the deceased had screamed: “Get your fucking gear out of here; I don’t want to see you; get lost you fucking bastard.” The witness said that on one occasion the applicant had shown him cuts and bruising to the back of one of his legs and, on another occasion, he had seen the applicant with a black eye. He said that, of the two of them, the deceased did “most of the talking”. He also said that he had seen the deceased punch the applicant in his kitchen.

Without objection from the Crown, the applicant’s trial counsel read into evidence statements from medical witnesses who had treated the deceased and the applicant in Darwin. Dr Chin stated that he had treated the applicant on 6 September 1994. The applicant had a laceration over his left eyebrow and an injury consistent with a “bite mark” on his right forearm. He also had a blackened left eye, swollen left cheek, swollen nose and bruised right forehead. All the injuries were consistent with assault. Dr Phillip Worley stated that he had treated the deceased at the Darwin Hospital in December 1991 for an “apparent suicide attempt” by slashing of wrists. In respect of this incident, it was accepted that it had occurred at a time which preceded the relationship between the deceased and the applicant.

The cases made by Crown and defence

The real issue in this case, as it seems to me, was whether the Crown was able to negative provocation in the event that the jury considered it a reasonable possibility that the stabbing of the deceased had occurred in the manner recounted by the applicant in his record of interview; namely that he had stabbed the deceased in response to her unjustified stabbing of him. Although the applicant’s record of interview had put in issue the existence of the relevant intention to support a charge of murder and the applicant, through counsel, had raised the issue of self-defence, it was unlikely that either of those issues could succeed having regard to the concluding statements made by the applicant in his record of interview in which he said that, after he had gained control of the knife and the deceased had laughed at him and said “You’re going to die”, he had “got angry” and said “I’m sick and tired of this — if I’m going, you’re going” and had “lunged at her” and “let her have it”.

In response to the applicant’s case that he had been provoked, the prosecution contended before the jury, as its “principal scenario”, that the deceased had never been in possession of the knife and that, after she had been assisted from the flat, the applicant had “self-inflicted” his wounds in order to raise a defence which was not properly open to him. Thus, in his final address, the prosecutor had told the jury:

The Crown say that really there are three possible scenarios here when you assess this. The first is . . . what the Crown has put from the beginning . . . that she never had the knife and that he has inflicted these wounds himself to provide a defence at a later time . . . that is what the Crown have set out to prove to you here, that indeed was the case.

Although the Crown suggested that there may be “other scenarios” — namely that she had the knife to defend herself against a life-threatening attack by him or that she had the knife in the circumstances described by the applicant in his record of interview, it was the Crown’s principal case, and the one which it asked the jury to accept, that the deceased never had the knife. Indeed it was the Crown case that the applicant had a motive to stab himself because he “was caught red handed” with the knife in his hand and “knew the problems he was in”. The prosecutor asked rhetorically:

What does he do, you might ask yourself, in a desperate situation like that? He must realize he’s murdered this girl or caused her very serious injury. He knows that only six weeks previously he’s been dealt with for assaulting this woman seriously. What possible view is anyone going to take in this fact situation; in that moment when they’ve caught him chasing her with the knife in the light of that background? What option does he have? The only option, the Crown say, is to turn the knife on himself.

Thus, the issue of whether the knife wounds to the applicant were inflicted by the deceased or were inflicted by himself after he had mortally wounded the deceased became a, if not the, crucial issue of fact in the case. If the jury accepted the Crown contention, then not only were the jury bound to reject the defences which he raised but they were entitled to use the wounds which he undoubtedly suffered as an admission of his guilt to the crime of murder.

The grounds of appeal

Against the background of the evidence which I have recited and the cases made by the Crown and the defence, it is now appropriate to turn to the grounds of appeal which have been argued in this court. Those grounds alleged wrongful admission of evidence and misdirection by the trial judge in respect of the evidence. Four grounds were argued; in substance they were as follows:

1. That the trial judge was in error in permitting the Crown to lead evidence of the “relationship” between the applicant and the deceased both in Darwin and Stawell.

1A. That the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the use which they could make of the “relationship evidence”.

2. That the trial judge was in error in admitting into evidence the opinion evidence of Drs Castle and Campbell that the wounds to the deceased were “self-inflicted”.

3. (By leave of the court) That the learned judge, having admitted the evidence of Drs Castle and Campbell, as referred to in ground 2, ought to have directed the jury to disregard it and had otherwise misdirected the jury in respect of it.

Mr Salek, counsel for the applicant, argued grounds 1 and 1A together and the remaining two grounds together. For the purposes of this judgment, it is appropriate to deal with the grounds in the same way.

The “relationship evidence”

Mr Salek submitted that his Honour should have excluded the relationship evidence on the grounds that it was evidence of uncharged criminal conduct amounting to “violent propensity” and did not satisfy the “no other reasonable explanation” test propounded by the High Court in Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461. In this regard it should be noted that s 398A of the Crimes Act 1958 which has recently introduced into the law of this State its own test of admissibility for “propensity evidence” designed to replace the “Pfennig test”, had no application to the proceedings in this case: cf R v Best [1998] 4 VR 603 at 611-12. Thus, Mr Salek submitted that, in determining whether the impugned evidence should have been admitted, the judge was obliged to have posed for himself the test, enunciated by the majority of the court in Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461Pfennig at 481, namely does the evidence possess:

. . . a particular cogency or probative value such that, if accepted, it bears no reasonable explanation other than the inculpation of the accused in the offence charged.

In support of this submission Mr Salek relied upon R v Wackerow [1998] 1 Qd R 197, particularly per Pincus JA at 204.

In a careful ruling, the trial judge, after argument, had excluded some of the evidence of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased which the Crown sought to tender on the basis that it related, in general terms, to the disposition or temperament of the deceased, or that it was “too remote”, or that it was evidence of “inadmissible hearsay”. He admitted, however, the evidence to which I have previously referred on the authority of Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334, ruling that it was or would become relevant to facts in issue in the trial. His Honour, however, ruled that the evidence could not be used to prove that the applicant had a propensity to commit the type of crime with which he was charged. He rejected the argument, advanced by the applicant’s trial counsel, that, in determining whether the evidence should be admitted it was appropriate to apply the test of admissibility formulated in Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461Pfennig at 481.

In my view his Honour was correct to have admitted the evidence which he did on the basis which he did. In cases of this kind, where the parties have been living together for a substantial period of time preceding the events in question, courts have traditionally admitted evidence of the pre-existing relationship between them provided that it has a bearing on the facts in issue. This is particularly so where the evidence is relevant to the state of mind of the accused at the time when the acts alleged occurred. Thus such evidence has been admitted to prove motive or to establish the intent of the accused, or to negative a defence of accident, self-defence or provocation. Such evidence can be admitted either for or against the interests of the accused. It would be contrary to common sense, for example, to exclude evidence which pointed to an entirely harmonious and compatible relationship between the accused person and his wife or partner if such evidence was relevant to the defence of the accused person: Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334Wilson v R at 337 per Barwick CJ. Likewise it would be contrary to reason and common sense to exclude evidence of previous violent acts by the deceased towards the accused person, or others, if such conduct had a relevance to the issues at trial: see Re Knowles [1984] VR 751.

Admission of evidence of relationship of the type which was admitted in this case, and for the purpose for which it was admitted, has a substantial pedigree. In Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334Wilson v R at 339, Barwick CJ explained its admissibility in the following way:

It is not in my opinion only in those cases where the evidence of the relations of the accused with others tends to establish motive that it is admissible though that may be the commonest case of its use and the one with which the reported cases have had mostly to deal. If the evidence does tend to explain the occurrence, or, as in this case, to assist the choice between the two explanations of the occurrence, then in my opinion on general principles, because it is relevant, it is admissible. Of course if it does not have that relevance, it is inadmissible . . . It is not that all evidence of the relationship of the parties is admissible, but only that from which a relevant inference may logically and reasonably be drawn . . . Here the evidence was of quarrelling and bad relationship over a considerable period stretching up to the time of the death of the deceased. In my opinion, the evidence of the relations which had developed between the applicant and his wife was admissible.

Menzies J, in whose reasons for judgment McTiernan and Walsh JJ agreed, said at 344:

It seems to me that here, as so often happens, an attempt has been made to reduce the law of evidence — which rests fundamentally upon the requirement of relevancy, ie having a bearing upon the matter in issue — to a set of artificial rules remote from reality and unsupported by reason. Any jury called upon to decide whether they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant killed his wife would require to know what was the relationship between the deceased and the accused. Were they an ordinary married couple with a good relationship despite differences and disagreements, or was their relationship one of enmity and distrust? It seems to me that nothing spoke more eloquently of the bitter relationship between them than that the wife, in the course of a quarrel, should charge her husband with the desire to kill her. The evidence is admissible not because the wife’s statements were causally connected with her death but to assist the jury in deciding whether the wife was murdered in cold blood or was the victim of mischance. To shut the jury off from any event throwing light upon the relationship between this husband and wife would be to require them to decide the issue as if it happened in a vacuum rather than in the setting of a tense and bitter relationship between a man and a woman who were husband and wife.

The statements made in Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334Wilson have been referred to and applied in many cases in this country both pre- and post-Pfennig Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461 where evidence of relations of the kind admitted in this case was in question and where it had been tendered to prove the state of mind of the accused, or, in some cases, the victim, at the relevant time. (See, for example, R v Hissey (1973) 6 SASR 280; Harriman v R (1989) 167 CLR 590 at 630 per McHugh J; R v Frawley (1993) 69 A Crim R 208 at 220 per Gleeson CJ; R v Vollmer [1996] 1 VR 95 at 132 per Southwell and McDonald JJ; R v Mala (unreported, 1997) R v Mala (unreported, Court of Appeal, 27 November 1997) per Ormiston JA at 10-12; R v Ritter (unreported, 1995)R v Ritter (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 31 August 1995) per Gleeson CJ at 7-9; R v Lock (unreported, 1997)R v Lock (unreported, NSW Supreme Court, 25 March 1997) per Hunt CJ at CL at 7-8.)

Evidence of the relationship between the parties has been admitted, not simply because it describes the relationship of the parties but because particular acts or statements occurring within that relationship are relevant to the issues arising in the case. I did not understand Mr Salek to contend that the evidence which the judge admitted in this case was not relevant to the issues in the case. He could scarcely have done so because it was evidence which had a bearing, not only the existence of malice aforethought, but also upon the issues of self-defence and provocation. Mr Salek’s contention was that the proper test, which the judge should have applied in determining the admissibility of the evidence, was that described by the majority of the court in Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461Pfennig at 481 which, so he contended, had modified the test of admissibility propounded in Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334Wilson and the cases which had followed it.

I am unable to accept these submissions. In my opinion, they read too much into the decision in Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461Pfennig. As I endeavoured to point out in R v Tektonopoulos [1999] 2 VR 412 at [24]-[25], in determining whether evidence of prior criminal or discreditable conduct is admissible, much depends upon the purpose for which the evidence is being tendered. In Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461Pfennig the evidence of other criminal conduct was being tendered, as “similar fact” evidence, to prove the fact that the crime charged had been committed and the fact that the accused was the one who had committed it. In cases like the present, the evidence is tendered as bearing on the state of mind of the accused person at the time when the undisputed act occurred. In the latter circumstance the evidence is tendered, not as propensity evidence to prove that the accused was the sort of person likely to have committed the crime charged; whereas in the former circumstance the purpose for which the evidence is being led is to identify the accused as the person who committed the crime charged. Where that is the purpose of the tender, the courts have always acted with caution and required a compelling degree of cogency, in the nature of “striking similarity” or “underlying unity”, before admitting the evidence. Where the evidence is tendered, not as evidence of propensity to commit the crime charged but as bearing on the accused’s state of mind at the relevant time, the judge must be satisfied that the evidence is relevant to a fact in issue, and must warn the jury that they cannot use the evidence for the impermissible purpose of demonstrating a propensity on the part of the accused to commit that crime. In the case of R v Ritter (unreported, 1995)Ritter, a submission similar to the one made by the applicant’s counsel to this court, had been made to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. In the course of giving the leading judgment of the court, Gleeson CJ said at 10:

Newman J admitted the evidence [ie “relationship evidence”] in reliance upon the authority of Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334 . . . In addition to the question of the relevance of the evidence, his Honour also considered an argument to the effect that the evidence should be excluded because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, and rejected the argument.

On this appeal the appellant’s submission that the evidence was inadmissible was based upon the recent decision of Pfennig v R (1995) 127 ALR 99Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 127 ALR 99. In particular, it was argued that the decision in Pfennig is authority for the proposition that evidence of the kind in question should have been rejected unless it were proper to conclude that its probative force was such that it bore no reasonable explanation other than the appellant’s guilt of the crime charged. This, it was said, is the test to be applied whenever the Crown tenders evidence, for any purpose, which is evidence tending to show that the accused is guilty of a criminal offence other than that charged.

I am not persuaded that Pfennig is authority for that proposition.

His Honour then went on to give examples where evidence disclosing that the accused was guilty of other criminal offences would clearly be relevant and admissible in proof of crimes charged. His Honour then continued at 11-12:

In the two examples mentioned above, the evidence in question was not propensity or similar fact evidence . . .

Similarly, in the present case the evidence in question was not led on the basis that it was propensity or similar fact evidence. It was led, in conformity with the decision of the High Court in Wilson, on the basis that it tended to establish matters relevant to the relationship between the appellant and the deceased. There is nothing in Pfennig which suggests the High Court was setting out to overrule or qualify Wilson. Indeed, it may be remarked that, if Pfennig is authority for the proposition relied upon by senior counsel for the appellant in this appeal, then Wilson would seem to be wrongly decided.

These remarks, if I might say so with respect, accurately point up the proposition that it is the purpose for which, or the basis upon which, the evidence is tendered which will play a significant part in the court’s determination as to whether it should be admitted, and the degree of cogency which is required to support its admission. That has always, so far as I am aware, been the effect of the common law principles.

In the case of R v Peake (1996) 67 SASR 297, the appellant had been convicted of an offence of unlawfully wounding a 16 year old girl with whom he had been living in a “de facto” relationship and of attempting to murder the girl’s parents. The offences had occurred during the course of a single incident and the various wounds had been inflicted with a samurai sword. The Crown had led evidence of events preceding the charged events which were designed to show that there had been long-standing enmity between the appellant and the girl’s parents and a history of violence and assaults perpetrated by the appellant upon the girl and her parents. The trial judge had admitted the evidence for the purpose of giving context to the offences charged, to demonstrate motive and to rebut the appellant’s defence of accidental infliction of wounds. The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected an argument that the evidence should have been excluded unless the trial judge was satisfied that it had the degree of cogency explained by the majority of the High Court in Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461Pfennig. In the course of his judgment Olsson J ( at 307) accepted the proposition that the decision in Pfennig:

. . . stands as the current definitive exposition of principle concerning the approach proper to be adopted to the broad sweep of propensity evidence — particularly similar fact evidence of the nature there under consideration. The critical point there in issue was that the probative value of evidence of that type lies in the improbability of witnesses giving accounts of happenings having the relevant degree of similarity unless the happening of the alleged events occurred. [Emphasis added.]

His Honour then contrasted the admission of evidence for that purpose with the admission of evidence led to establish a relevant relationship. He said at 307:

Whilst it is true that, in the introductory paragraph at the commencement of the joint judgment [ie in Pfennig], the broad statement was made that so-called relationship evidence is a category of propensity evidence, I do not take the High Court to have overruled, or significantly qualified, the reasoning stemming from the earlier authority of Wilson v The Queen . . .

His Honour referred to the statements of Barwick CJ in Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334Wilson v R (to which I have earlier in these reasons referred), to a passage in the judgment of the SA Full Court in R v Hissey (1973) 6 SASR 280 R v Hissey, and (inter alia) to the statement of Toohey J in S v R (1989) 168 CLR 266 at 279 that:

. . . evidence which bears on the relationship between an accused and a complainant over a period of time may not in truth be similar fact evidence when it is admitted, not to show propensity but rather the relationship between the parties . . .

Olsson J concluded by saying at 308:

All of the foregoing authorities combine to suggest that Mr Peek seeks to read far more into a general introductory statement of the majority in Pfennig v The Queen than was ever intended. I see nothing in their judgment to indicate an intention to abrogate the reasoning underpinning those authorities.

The Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision in R v Peake (1996) 67 SASR 297Peake went to the High Court on an application for special leave: Peake v R A/47 1996, 4 September 1997. Again the question was raised “whether evidence of prior criminal conduct, which is led to establish relationship, is required to satisfy the high test of cogency recognized by the (High Court) in Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461Pfennig“. The court (Brennan CJ, Toohey and Kirby JJ) rejected the application on the basis that “the prospects of appeal, whether on the question of admissibility or on the question of inadequate directions, are not sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave”. In the context of this appeal, the transcript of argument on the application is noteworthy only because it records the following statement of Brennan CJ at 4-5:

Now one can readily understand how one ought not to admit evidence of propensity to engage in a certain kind of conduct when the issue for determination by the jury is whether the accused engaged in that kind of conduct. That is where you have problems of the actus reus. Was this the person who committed the rape? Did the schoolmaster violate the boy, et cetera? But that is not the problem here, is it? It is not a question of whether he did or did not wield the sword; it is a question of mens rea. So there was no real risk of the jury misusing the evidence of the acts of violence in order to determine whether the sword was wielded; the only question is whether the evidence was admissible to assist the jury in coming to a conclusion as to the mental element.

For the foregoing reasons, I am not persuaded by the applicant’s argument that the judge was in error in admitting the so-called relationship evidence on the basis which he did. His Honour did not admit it as evidence probative of the fact that the applicant had stabbed the deceased. He admitted it for the purpose of enabling the jury to understand the relationship which had existed between the parties and thus to enable them to better evaluate the respective intentions with which the parties had acted on the night in question. There was no risk that the jury would have used the evidence as “propensity evidence” because they were strongly warned that they could not use it for such a purpose. That is sufficient to dispose of ground 1 of the appeal. However there was another compelling reason why the evidence was admissible. As I have said the applicant himself, in his record of interview, had spoken at length about his relationship with the deceased and had described it in terms favourable to himself and unfavourable to the deceased. It was made clear to the judge by counsel for the applicant, in the course of taking objection to the admissibility of the evidence, that he (ie counsel) desired the record of interview to go into evidence without editing. If that had occurred the jury would have had before them, in the absence of the evidence objected to, an entirely one-sided — and perhaps erroneous view — of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased. In the long run it was a matter for the jury as to what they made of the evidence of relationship but it was, in my view, quite proper for the judge to ensure that the jury’s consideration of the issues be made upon all the relevant evidence describing the relationship and not simply upon the applicant’s description of it.

Nor, in my view, can it be said that his Honour’s directions to the jury as to the manner in which they could use the “relationship evidence” amounted to misdirections or, at least, misdirections which caused an injustice to the applicant. His Honour said:

This evidence, which we call relationship evidence, has been led to enable you to understand the relationship between the parties. It may assist you to understand what was in their minds on 2 April, because they, better than anybody, knew the events between them that had gone before. In other words, when you approach the evidence of the events of 2 April, you must not do so on some unreal basis as if we are hearing of two strangers meeting for the first time; you don’t have to decide this case in a vacuum, and I am sure that will not surprise you or cause you any difficulty. It is, however, necessary that I bring to your attention a principle of law that is very fundamental in our system. It is this: a person may be convicted of an offence, any offence, only on the evidence which bears on that offence. The prosecution, therefore, is not entitled to prove a person’s guilt of one offence by leading evidence of other crimes that person has committed.

His Honour then gave an example which was calculated to tell the jury that they could not convict a man simply on the basis of propensities. In that context he reminded the jury of the evidence that the applicant had assaulted the deceased in Stawell some six weeks before the crime alleged. He then continued:

You are not permitted to use evidence that [the applicant] assaulted [the deceased] on that evening to conclude that he is a woman beater and therefore likely to have attacked her on 2 April in the same way. You may however use the evidence of the events of the 19 February incident to understand how each of them might have behaved in the situation in which they found themselves on 2 April . . . You have to bear in mind that you cannot use the evidence of any assaults which you find to have been committed by [the applicant] upon [the deceased] either in Stawell or Darwin (assuming you find those assaults occurred). You cannot use that evidence to conclude that, as a woman beater, he is guilty of the charge before this court. You must focus, therefore, your attention on the events of the evening of 2 April, as you find them, and you may then use the relationship evidence to assist you to understand how these two people behaved on this occasion.

His Honour then gave the jury a summary of the evidence relating to the prior relationship of the parties and, having done so, concluded by saying:

. . . I remind you again that you may use these [events] in order to understand the relationship, background, that . . . the parties would have known on 2 April, but you are not to use it for an improper purpose; and the improper purpose would be to conclude that because he beat her, as he describes, if you so find on 19 February, therefore he is a woman beater and therefore likely to repeat this behaviour.

It was contended that these directions were inadequate because they gave little guidance to the jury as to how they could use the evidence, as distinct from how they could not use it. Whilst I agree that the directions could have been more explicit as to the manner in which the evidence might have been used by the jury, it seems to me that the more important aspect was to tell the jury that they were not to use it for the purpose of concluding that the applicant was the kind of person who was likely to have committed the crime charged. His Honour warned the jury on more than one occasion that they could not use the evidence for that purpose but only for the purposes of putting the events of 2 April in a proper and realistic context and for the purposes of understanding “what was in the mind” of the parties in the course of those events. Although, as it seems to me, this latter direction was not as specific as it could have been, I am of the view that the entire direction — in the terms given — was quite sufficient and not disadvantageous to the interests of the applicant. That, no doubt, was the reason why no exception was taken to the content of the directions by counsel for the applicant on the trial.

In those circumstances I am not satisfied that there was any material misdirection by the judge in respect of these matters and, accordingly, I would reject ground 1A.

The expert opinion evidence

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial judge had erroneously admitted into evidence the opinions expressed by Drs Campbell and Castle that the wounds which they had observed on the applicant had been “self inflicted”; and had further erred, in the light of the evidence which they gave, in failing to direct the jury that they should disregard such opinions.

As I have previously stated, the evidence was led in support of the “principal scenario” put by the Crown that the deceased had not been in possession of the knife and that, after she had been removed from the flat, the applicant had used the knife to inflict the injuries upon himself in order to conceal the true nature of the crime which he had committed and to provide for himself a basis for exoneration. It is, at once, apparent that acceptance of the Crown’s contention carried with it significant ramifications for the applicant. Not only would it have the effect of providing a complete answer to the applicant’s claims of self-defence and provocation, but would also lead to the inevitable conclusion that the applicant’s conduct in inflicting his own injuries amounted to an admission that he had committed the crime charged and that his subsequent statements to police, doctors and others that the deceased had inflicted his injuries were falsehoods told so as to conceal his guilt. If, on the other hand, it was accepted that it was reasonably possible that the applicant had suffered his injuries in the circumstances which he had related in his record of interview, there was at least a basis upon which the jury could find that the stabbing of the deceased by the applicant was not unprovoked. That much appears to have been conceded by the prosecutor in his final address. The applicant’s record of interview was tendered in evidence by the Crown and thus formed part of the evidential material which, along with other evidence, fell to be considered by the jury in considering the applicant’s guilt of the crime charged: R v Su [1997] 1 VR 1 at 64-5; R v Lovett [1972] VR 413 at 418. It was, of course, a matter for the jury to determine what weight they would attribute to the applicant’s explanation of the circumstances in which the stabbing had occurred. Although the Crown was entitled to impugn that explanation by reference to evidence properly before the jury, the applicant was entitled to expect that the jury’s consideration of the evidential value of his explanation would not be impeded or defeated by the introduction of inadmissible expert evidence. That, no doubt, was the reason why so much time was devoted during the trial to the admissibility of the opinion evidence of Campbell and Castle.

In the absence of the expert opinion evidence, the evidence upon which the Crown relied to support its contention that the applicant had inflicted his own injuries appears to me to have been somewhat tenuous. If the evidence of “times” given by the relevant witnesses were to be accepted, it would appear that the applicant had arrived at the police station in his injured state at or about the same time as the deceased was being assisted into Main Street. In that event the opportunity for him to have inflicted wounds to himself would have been minimal. In addition to the opinion evidence, the Crown sought to support its contention of “self-infliction” by reference to the “relationship evidence”; the evidence of the distribution of the blood of the applicant and the deceased as later found in the flat; the fact that the applicant was the only person seen with the knife; the fact that none of the persons who came into the flat had seen any sign of injury to the applicant, and the fact that none of his injuries was “serious”. Although the Crown was, no doubt, entitled to use this evidence as supportive of its contention that the applicant had, in some manner, inflicted his own injuries, none of it, considered individually or collectively, seems to me to be conclusive of the issue. Whatever view was taken of the “relationship evidence”, it did not suggest that the applicant had ever used a weapon against the deceased. Indeed, as the Crown conceded, the deceased herself was “no angel”. Furthermore, as it seems to me, the evidence of the distribution of blood found in the kitchen and upon the knife handle, and the fact that the “rescuers” had seen only the applicant with the knife were quite consistent with the accused’s account of the events given to the police. The fact that the “rescuers” saw no sign of injury to the applicant was equivocal having regard to the limited opportunity which they had to make their observations and the fact that the colour of the clothing which he was wearing was apt to conceal whatever injuries he had. Indeed the witness Cameron, who had seen him at the hospital, said that she observed no injuries to him even though it was not in dispute that he had the injuries at the time.

Over the objection of the applicant’s counsel, his Honour permitted the Crown to lead opinion evidence from Mr Campbell, Dr Castle and Dr Wells. Campbell was the surgeon who treated the applicant’s wounds at the Wimmera Base Hospital and Castle was the doctor who examined the applicant at Stawell and had referred him to the Wimmera Base. Dr Wells was the head of clinical forensic medicine at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Science and the senior lecturer in forensic medicine at Monash University. His specialty was, he said, that of “looking at injuries” and “interpreting them”.

His Honour admitted the evidence of all three witnesses. He said that he was satisfied that there was in existence an organised body of knowledge “concerned with whether knife wounds in a given case were self-inflicted or inflicted by a third party”. He held that each of the experts was qualified by experience and practice to express an opinion within the field of knowledge which he found to exist. He rejected counsel’s submission that neither Campbell nor Castle was expert in “the field”. His Honour referred to Campbell’s experience in treating accidental self-inflicted injuries which regularly came to his attention from the local abattoir. He said that:

. . . in order to determine the sufficiency of the experience and the training, I must have regard to the nature of the opinion in question and the reasons offered by the witness for it. In the case of Mr Campbell, he bases his conclusion upon physical features of the wounds he observed. An opinion expressed by a medical practitioner with his background is therefore receivable.

His Honour said that the court was not “concerned to evaluate the opinion” for itself and that:

. . . if Mr Campbell’s opinion is insubstantial and not worthy of credit, I will leave this to counsel to demonstrate.

In respect of Dr Castle, the judge again rejected counsel’s submission that the doctor was not qualified by training or experience to express an opinion within the field of knowledge which he had found to exist. He further rejected the submission that, on the material available, Castle had not demonstrated a foundation to express the opinion that the applicant’s wounds were self-inflicted. His Honour said his concern was “whether logically and factually [Castle’s] opinion is so unsound that I should not permit the jury to evaluate it. I am of the opinion that his opinion does not fall into that category . . .”

Campbell gave evidence that he had concluded shortly after treating the applicant, and had noted, that the wounds were self-inflicted. His police statement, partly on the faith of which his Honour permitted him to express an opinion said:

All the wounds are consistent with having been caused by downward blows made with a sharp, narrow knife. They’re all consistent with having been self inflicted.

In his evidence, he described the wounds which the applicant had suffered and which I have earlier related. He said that the only two wounds which were sufficiently deep to obtain a measure of angulation were the two to the abdomen to the left of the umbilicus. He said that “because of the angle . . . I believe that [sic] was caused by a downward blow with a knife”. On that basis he said: “I believe they were self-inflicted.” He repeated, in cross-examination, that his “belief” was founded on the “downward angulation” of the wounds. He said “a self-inflicted wound to the abdomen is going to be downward pointed” whereas a self-inflicted wound to the leg “depends what position the leg is in”. He ultimately conceded, however, that a wound inflicted to the abdomen by an assailant might have a “downward angulation” depending upon how the assailant was holding the knife or whether the victim was upright or bending forward.

As I have previously indicated, Castle’s evidence of the examination which he had made of the applicant’s wounds at the Stawell Hospital was variously described as “very quick”, “very brief” and “hurried”. He said that the wounds “appeared to be superficial” but, “because one looked a little deeper than the others” and “may have punctured the bowel” he had referred him to the Wimmera Base Hospital. He agreed that he had not examined all the wounds, nor had he formed an initial view as to their cause. He later conceded that he had spoken to Campbell and was asked for his opinion by the police about a month after his examination. In evidence he said:

Q — Did you form a view in relation to the injuries you observed on the abdomen of that man as to the cause of those wounds? A — Well, I didn’t at the time because I was concerned to make sure about his welfare and the welfare of the deceased, who was critically injured. I was asked my opinion . . . about a month later.

Q — What was your opinion? A — Well, taking all factors into consideration — there are two things —

Q — Tell us what your opinion was first please? A — I would think, taking all factors into consideration and seeing the size of the assailant . . .

Q — Without going into the size of the assailant? A — Alright. Well I was of the opinion that at least some of them would have been self-inflicted.

In cross-examination, Dr Castle said that he “could not see how she would inflict all the wounds” without him doing something to stop her. In his view “size and strength” were important, but “superficiality” was the main thing. He then said that he had not explored the wounds to see how deep they were. He said that he “had not had much experience with wounds in this situation”; most of his experience “was with bullet wounds”. He was further asked whether there were “accepted criteria for forming a judgment as to whether wounds are self-inflicted”, to which he replied:

There are some criteria, but it is often very difficult to say whether a wound is self-inflicted or not.

He repeated that the “apparent shallowness” of the wounds was the “most important factor”. However, he said that he could not tell from his examination how deep the wounds to the stomach were, but he could see from the symptoms that the applicant may be suffering from some internal damage. He also agreed that he had made no notes as to where the wounds were and that he had made no attempt to look at all the wounds or to measure them.

Wells gave evidence that he had studied characteristics of wounds over a long period with a view to interpreting from them their possible causes, including the possible self-infliction of them. By dint of his studies he was able to say that “self-inflicted wounds” often bore common characteristics; eg they “tend to be of a similar type”, in sites that are “readily accessible” to the dominant hand, whether there were signs of “self-defensive injuries”, whether the wounds were to “vital” or “non-vital” areas, and so on. On the other hand, he said that the finding of stab wounds of significant depth to the abdomen “is not a common situation in self-inflicted injuries”. He referred to a “table of characteristics” (produced by Dr Stephen Cordner, forensic pathologist) that the interpreter might usually look for in determining whether wounds might be self-inflicted. Wells had had access to the applicant’s record of interview setting out his history of the altercation. He said that “downward angulation” of wounds to the stomach was not a determinant. Overall, he said he was left “very much with this balance of a possibility of (the wounds) being sustained in the mechanism alleged by (the applicant)”.

The only other expert called to give evidence as to whether the wounds were self-inflicted was Dr Collins, a forensic pathologist of some years standing and a lecturer in forensic pathology at Melbourne and Monash Universities. He was called in the presentation of the defence case. He said that he had made a study of the patterns and characteristics of wounds with a view to determining their cause and whether they were “self-inflicted”. He was familiar with the “table of characteristics” which had been referred to by Wells. He expressed the opinion that:

. . . because of the different types of injuries [ie to the applicant] and their wide scattering over the body, in my view they are more consistent with having been inflicted by another individual rather than having been self-inflicted.

He, too, said that the fact that a wound to the stomach has a “downward angulation” was of no real significance because the relevant positions of the parties cannot be fixed. Knife wounds to stab victims, he said, can be “at all sorts of angles”. He also said that, if knife wounds are self-inflicted “in an attempt to feign an assault”, they “tend to be in areas related to non-vital functions of the body”. He, too, agreed that stab wounds into the abdomen were a contra-indication of self-infliction.

This, then was how the evidence of the experts stood at the time when the judge came to direct the jury. In dealing with it, his Honour said:

A good deal of time was devoted to this matter, the significance of which, of course, lay in the prosecutor’s first scenario that she did not use the knife on him, it was he who injured himself . . .

His Honour then referred to the witnesses who had given evidence and that he intended to summarise the evidence of each of them. He continued:

Before I do so, can I just say something general about how you might approach the evidence which is essentially opinion evidence of these doctors. For the most part, the facts which they were working from were not contentious; the area of debate you will recall is what it all meant and what inference could be drawn. We are back into this familiar area of inference that I spoke to you about earlier. It has an added complication because you, as I imagine, lay people with not much more medical knowledge than I have, are asked to pick and choose between persons with very eminent backgrounds. The important thing to bear in mind is that opinion evidence from doctors . . . is part of the area of fact which is your responsibility and it is your function to decide, in accordance with the principles that I have outlined, between them. If Dr A says black, and Dr B says white and that is a fact which you must decide, then you must decide it. You can do that as you do any evidence, have regard to the demeanour of the witness, you have regard to the way in which the opinions are expressed. You have regard to the logical reasons which are offered for them and whether they appeal to you as a logical thing. You have regard to the facts that they rely upon in support of their conclusions. You have regard also to the way they handled the challenge to their opinions in cross-examination. You have regard to their attitude to the case, whether you regard them to be objective or partisan. You have to make up your own mind about that.

So it is not an easy task, but it is just one of the many difficult tasks that juries often have to perform. Bear in mind that it is evidence and it is for you to determine which of the witnesses you prefer and to apply them in the manner that I have described bearing in mind ultimately where the burden of proof lies.

His Honour then recited the evidence, in turn, of each of the expert witnesses.

During the course of his Honour’s directions, counsel for the applicant asked whether his Honour proposed to direct the jury, on the assumption that there was a “recognized body of science” in which the witness was qualified to express an opinion, whether particular witnesses had expressed, or had a basis for expressing such opinion. His Honour replied that he would not be giving such a direction because:

. . . in an area such as this, which is of interpretation of injuries, . . . such a direction really does not take the matter much further than what I have said . . . the thing is that essentially . . . the observations that are contained in the table are not . . . much more than common sense, and that’s the way the witnesses appear to address them. It’s not as though you are dealing with something truly medical or truly scientific. It’s really a behavioural question, and it seems to me that is particularly within the capacity of the jury.

Counsel returned to the matter again during the course of the charge, asking that the jury be “given guidance about opinion evidence . . . as to whether or not it was a matter of expertise or whether it was simply wild conjecture that some of the witnesses were giving . . .”. His Honour replied that he had:

. . . attempted . . . to intrude no comment as this summary has gone ahead and I would not want to depart from that either to say, for example, if I took the view that this is a proper view they should take, that . . . Dr Castle’s opinion should be thrown out as . . . mere conjecture . . . any more than I would say that your client’s statement to the police is a lot of nonsense . . . I think it’s important that I simply put it to them and I will not exhibit or make any comment about the validity of the expert . . . I will be summarizing . . . fairly your arguments, and insofar as you have taken Dr Castle to task, I will remind them that you have done so, but I would not add the weight of my office to that criticism.

Counsel then submitted that there was no scientific basis for the opinions expressed by Drs Campbell and Castle and that his Honour should so direct the jury with the weight of his office. His Honour said that he would “not give the jury further guidance unless they ask for it on the use that they might make of the expert evidence”.

Against the background of the material to which I have referred, Mr Salek has submitted to this court that the trial judge was in error in admitting the opinions of Mr Campbell and Dr Castle into evidence or, alternatively, ought to have directed the jury that they should disregard their opinions on the basis that their evidence disclosed that they were not experts in the field in which they purported to express opinions or, if they were, no evidential foundation had been given for the opinions which they gave. Counsel was prepared to accept, and asked the court to accept, that there is an organised body of knowledge and experience, based on the observation of wounds alone, which will entitle a person, skilled in the knowledge, to express an expert opinion upon the question of whether particular wounds observed are self-inflicted: cf Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486 at 490-1 per Dixon CJ and at 501-2 per Menzies J; R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45 at 46-7 per King CJ. I must confess to some difficulty in comprehending how a person, medically qualified or not, by merely observing wounds, can express an opinion that they have been “self-inflicted”. However, I am prepared to accept that such a body of knowledge exists. The evidence of Wells and Collins tends to lend some support to its existence. What is clear, however, is that such body of knowledge does not derive from recognised principles of medical science, but rather from the study of characteristics and patterns of wounds from which one may infer, by comparison with recognised standards, that the wounds being studied are themselves self-inflicted. Such an expertise would not necessarily be limited to medical practitioners although, by dint of their practice, they would be the more likely possessors of it. In a real sense, as I understand it, the claimed expertise is derived from empirical data in much the same way as those who claim an expertise in analysing and interpreting blood stains to determine their source of origin, whence they emanate and the force of impact required to produce them. However the field of expertise, which we are asked to assume in this case, would seem to me to be necessarily an imprecise one simply by reason of the infinite variety of circumstances in which wounds are produced and can be suffered. In general terms, the law’s own experience suggests that expressions of opinions that a wound or wounds are self-inflicted are those expressed with full knowledge of surrounding circumstances; for example the history given by the victim or the knowledge that the victim was found in circumstances suggesting self-harm, etc. It is, perhaps, instructive that counsel have not been able to cite to the court any case where opinion evidence of this type, given in circumstances where the accused denies self-infliction and asserts infliction by a third party, has been recognised or received in evidence.

Mr Salek has submitted, however, that on the assumption that such a specialised field of knowledge exists, neither Mr Campbell nor Dr Castle had qualified themselves as experts in it and that, accordingly, they should not have been permitted to express the opinions which they gave. He submitted that his Honour was in error in treating Mr Campbell as an expert simply because he “bases his conclusion upon physical features of the wounds he observed”, and that an “opinion expressed by a medical practitioner with his background is therefore receivable”. This was, he submitted, to accord, erroneously, the necessary expertise to the witness simply because he was a surgeon of some years standing and had based his opinion on physical features of the wounds which he observed. There was no suggestion, so Mr Salek submitted, that Mr Campbell had ever undertaken a study of wound characteristics or patterns which would equip him with the expertise to express an opinion that these wounds had characteristics commonly found in wounds which had been self-inflicted to feign an assault. Indeed, said Mr Salek, he conceded that he had not read “any articles or texts which set out criteria for judging whether wounds have been self-inflicted” and that he “did not know” if there were any criteria for making a judgment of that kind. Further, he had said that he was “sure that forensic pathologists (would) have their criteria” but, because he was not a forensic pathologist, he “would not know”. Apart from the fact that he had been told by the applicant that he had been stabbed by “the girl”, he had taken no history from the applicant as to the circumstances in which he claimed to receive his wounds. Mr Salek submitted that the only basis which Campbell had given for his opinion was that the two wounds to the stomach demonstrated a “downward angulation” and that he had ultimately conceded that such a basis was not conclusive of self-infliction. It was further submitted that the only two witnesses who had any claim to expertise in this area were Dr Wells and Dr Collins and each of them had given evidence rejecting the stated basis upon which Mr Campbell had formed his opinion. In this state of the evidence, Mr Salek submitted, his Honour should have acceded to counsel’s submission that the jury ought to have been told to disregard the opinion of Campbell.

Mr Salek submitted that Dr Castle’s opinion was also wrongly admitted because he had not demonstrated that he had any relevant expertise; nor did he demonstrate that he had any foundation to express the opinion which he did. He submitted that his Honour was in error to conclude that he could admit the evidence of Castle because it was not “so logically and factually unsound that I should not permit the jury to evaluate it”. It was clear, Mr Salek submitted, that Castle had demonstrated no factual foundation for the opinion which he was permitted to express. He had only examined the applicant’s wounds “very briefly” and for a purpose quite discrete from forming an opinion as to their cause. He did not form or express the opinion until the police had asked him about a month after his examination. He did not examine all of the wounds nor did he seek to determine where they were or how deep they were. Mr Salek submitted that it was apparent from the evidence given by Dr Castle that his opinion was not based upon any expertise in the subject matter upon which the opinion was professed to be based but upon speculative matters such as the comparative sizes of the applicant and the deceased and the impression which he had formed that the deceased could not have inflicted all the applicant’s wounds without him doing anything to stop her. It was put that Castle had effectively conceded his lack of expertise when he had said that he did “not have much experience with wounds in this situation” and that, although there are “some criteria” for forming a judgment as to whether wounds are self-inflicted, “it is often very difficult to say whether a wound is self-inflicted or not”. He did not say what the “some criteria” were. Ultimately he said that it was the “apparent shallowness” of the wounds which was the predominant factor; yet he had conceded that he had made no assessment to determine how deep the wounds were. Mr Salek submitted that the ultimate opinion expressed by the witness, namely “that at least some of the wounds would have been self-inflicted” — without saying which — was conjecture and not expert opinion. Again Mr Salek submitted that, on the basis of the evidence, his Honour should have acceded to counsel’s submission that he should direct the jury to disregard the evidence of Castle’s so-called opinion.

I agree with Mr Salek that neither the opinion of Mr Campbell nor that of Dr Castle should have been permitted to go before the jury. In my view, neither had shown himself to be qualified to express an opinion in the field of expertise claimed and neither had demonstrated any factual or scientific foundation for the opinion expressed. I also agree with Mr Salek that, at the very least, the judge should have directed the jury to disregard the opinions expressed by those witnesses because, by the end of their evidence, it was, in my view, clear that neither of them possessed any expertise in the organised body of knowledge or experience claimed to support the opinion offered for the guidance of the jury. I must confess that I harbour some sympathy for the trial judge having regard to the manner in which the matter was first presented to him. The matter was dealt with on the written materials put before the judge and without any clear exposition from the Crown as to what the specialised body of knowledge and experience was and how the two doctors claimed to be experts in that field. Neither Campbell nor Castle gave evidence on the voir dire, and it seemed, at least from the transcript, that the Crown was suggesting that any doctor with an experience of treating injuries was qualified to express an opinion of the type which these two witnesses eventually expressed. This assumption appears to have been carried into the learned judge’s reasons for concluding that the witnesses were qualified. From reading the transcript, it seems that it was only when Dr Wells gave evidence that it became clear just how specialised the field of knowledge or experience was, which would qualify a person to express an opinion that a particular wound or wounds was or were deliberately self-inflicted to “mimic” an assault. Expertise in such a field of knowledge, so the evidence suggested, was able to be claimed only by those who had made an habitual study of wound characteristics and patterns and who, by an accumulation of data and comparison against known standards, could express an informed opinion on the question whether particular wounds had been self-inflicted. Neither Campbell nor Castle claimed to have acquired such an expertise. There was no doubt about their expertise as medical practitioners in their respective fields but, as Brennan J pointed out in Murphy v R (1989) 167 CLR 94 at 120, the “admissibility of opinion evidence tendered by an expert depends upon the fact which is sought to be proved by the admission of the evidence”. His Honour referred to the passage in Wigmore on Evidence, Chadbourn Rev, (1979), vol 2, p 750 where it is stated that:

The object is to be sure that the question to the witness will be answered by a person who is fitted to answer it . . . He may be fitted to answer about countless other matters, but that does not justify accepting his views on the matter in hand . . . Since experiential capacity is always relative to the matter in hand, the witness may, from question to question, enter or leave the class of persons fitted to answer, and the distinction depends on the kind of subject primarily, not the kind of person.

So here, there could be little doubt that Campbell and Castle would have an expertise to express opinions on a range of medical matters, but it was apparent, in my opinion, from their evidence that they were not appropriately qualified to express an opinion on the particular subject matter in question.

The trial judge has a continuing responsibility, particularly in a criminal trial where a witness has been allowed to express an opinion on a critical issue, to ensure that such opinion is not left for the jury’s consideration where it has become clear that the person who has expressed it has no qualification to do so, or has provided no factual or scientific foundation for the opinion expressed: see Bugg v Day (1949) 79 CLR 442 at 456-7 per Latham CJ; R v Inch (1990) 91 Cr App R 51 at 54; R v Marquard (1993) 85 CCC 193 at 225. Although it is, of course, true that it is for the judge to decide whether an expert’s opinion is admissible, and for the jury to decide whether the opinion is credible and what weight it should be given, it is also true that an opinion is only as good as the factual or scientific basis upon which it is expressed; and if no such basis is given or, if given, can be seen to be speculative or irrelevant to the opinion expressed, then the opinion will be worthless: R v Turner [1975] QB 834 at 840 per Lawton LJ. In that sense the existence of such a foundation, or proper foundation, for the expression of opinion is a matter relevant to be taken into account on the question of admissibility: R v Bonython [1984] 38 SASR 45 R v Bonython at 46-7 per King CJ; R v J (1994) 75 A Crim R 522 at 531-2 per Brooking J.

In my view, this was a case where it became clear that neither Campbell nor Castle had any satisfactory basis to support the opinions which they were permitted to express. Campbell expressed a basis which he later conceded to be non-conclusive; and because Castle had made it clear that his examination of the applicant had been so brief and carried out for a purpose unconnected with the formation of the opinion which he expressed, it could not possibly have formed a proper foundation for that opinion. In those circumstances it was, in my opinion, not sufficient for the judge to have adopted the “non-interventionist” approach which he did; namely not to intrude any comment of his own but rather to leave it for the jury to determine whether the opinions had an adequate factual basis to support them; and then to decide which of the witnesses they preferred. In my opinion, and for the reasons expressed, the applicant’s counsel was entitled to ask the judge to withdraw the opinions expressed by Campbell and Castle from the jury’s consideration; and it is also my opinion that his Honour should have done so. If that had been done, his Honour would have been bound to tell the jury that there was nothing in the opinion evidence alone upon which they could properly conclude that the applicant had inflicted his own wounds. It is interesting to note that, in refusing counsel’s application to withdraw the opinion evidence from the jury, the learned judge expressed the view that the field in which the opinions were offered, including the criteria to be applied, was a matter of “common sense”, was neither medical nor scientific, but “behavioural” and, as such, “within the capacity of the jury”. It is not entirely clear to me what his Honour was intending by these remarks, but they are open to the interpretation that he had, by then, formed the view that the area claimed was not one for the expression of opinions at all.

Even if, contrary to the view to which I have come, the jury could properly have been asked to consider the opinions expressed by Campbell and Castle, it was not enough to simply tell the jury that it was for them to determine which of the expert witnesses they preferred. This was a case where there were conflicting opinions bearing upon a critical issue in the trial, and yet little guidance was given to the jury about how to approach such evidence generally, let alone in the specific circumstances of this case. If the jury were to accept the evidence of Campbell and Castle then it was, as I have previously stated, inevitable that the only conclusion to which they could come was that the applicant had not acted in self-defence and had not been provoked, and that, when he had told the witnesses that he had been stabbed by the deceased, he was lying. Although, of course, there will be many circumstances in which a jury will be entitled to act on the opinions expressed by some witnesses in preference to the opinions expressed by others: cf Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 598 per Brennan J, where, as here, the opinions were directed to an issue which would conclude the guilt of the accused, the jury should have been told that they could only accept the opinions expressed by Campbell and Castle, to the exclusion of those expressed by Collins and Wells, if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the former opinions were correct: R v Sodo (1975) 61 Cr App R 131 at 134.

For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that grounds 2 and 3 have been made out. The Crown contended that, if the court came to the view that the opinion evidence of Campbell and Castle had been wrongly admitted, or that the jury had been misdirected in respect of it, it ought to conclude that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the proviso should be applied. It based this submission upon the proposition that it must have been obvious to the jury that Wells and Collins were far more experienced in the subject matter of the opinion evidence than were Campbell and Castle, that the latter experts had been effectively destroyed by cross-examination and that, accordingly, the totality of the opinion evidence would have been regarded as inconclusive. Indeed Ms Carlin, who argued these grounds on behalf of the respondent, contended that cross-examination had so clearly exposed the lack of expertise in Campbell and Castle, that no account would have been paid to their opinions. Further, the Crown contended that the “self-infliction” by the applicant of his wounds was only “one of the scenarios” put to the jury by the prosecutor and it was open to the jury to have rejected self-defence and provocation on the basis of the “other scenarios” put to them by the Crown.

These submissions, if I might say so, lie uneasily in the mouth of the Crown, which had been responsible for leading the body of opinion evidence which had been precipitated by the hasty and ill-considered impression formed by Mr Campbell on the morning of 2 April. To have then led evidence from Dr Castle, whom the police only approached a month after his “cursory examination” and who had by then spoken to Campbell, was, to say the least, ill-advised. The issue which was created by the opinion evidence of Campbell and Castle was not “just one” of three “scenarios” put by the Crown — it was the “principal scenario” and the one which the Crown exhorted the jury to accept. It was an issue which dominated the trial. There seems to me to have been very little evidence, other than what the Crown now calls the discredited opinion evidence of Campbell and Castle to support its “principal scenario” and the Crown was quite content to use such evidence to invite the jury to accept the case which it put. The mere fact that there were other “scenarios” put by the Crown to support the case of wilful and unprovoked murder can be of little assistance to this court in determining whether the applicant has lost a fair chance of acquittal. For all we know, the jury may have been content to accept the so-called “scenario” which was urged upon them and have been prepared to act on the opinions of Campbell and Castle in doing so. No comfort, I think, can be obtained from the jury’s request (made during deliberations) to have read back to them the prosecutor’s address on “proportionality” and to read into that request a conclusion that the jury must have accepted that the deceased had caused the applicant’s injuries. When one reads that portion of the prosecutor’s address he was particularly confining himself to the question of the stabbing being an unreasonable response by the applicant to being struck with the poker.

It has often been said by this and other courts that ill-informed expert opinion evidence can be seductive of juries particularly when furnished by witnesses of stature: R v Parker (unreported, 1995) R v Parker (unreported, Court of Appeal, 10 August 1995) at 37. Not only is such evidence potentially seductive but it has a tendency, as I suspect it had in this case, to divert the focus of the trial away from the essential issues and to concentrate the focus on the dispute between the experts. As Dawson J said in Murphy v R (1989) 167 CLR 94 Murphy v R at 131:

The admission of such [opinion] evidence carries with it the implication that the jury are not equipped to decide the relevant issue without the aid of expert opinion and thus, if it is wrongly admitted, it is likely to divert them from their proper task which is to decide the matter for themselves using their own common sense. And even though most juries are not prone to pay undue deference to expert opinion, there is at least a danger that the manner of its presentation may, if it is wrongly admitted, give to it an authority which is not warranted. In addition the calling of unnecessary expert evidence tends to prolong a trial, particularly when it provokes the calling of further expert evidence in reply. Moreover there is then a risk that the focus of the trial will shift from the evidence of the facts in dispute to the conflict between competing theories of the various expert witnesses.

These remarks are apposite to what occurred in this trial and they accord, if I might respectfully say so, with common experience.

I cannot accept the Crown’s submission that the introduction of what I have concluded was inadmissible opinion evidence has not deprived the applicant of a fair chance of acquittal. Unfortunate though it may be, the conviction must be quashed and another trial ordered. Phillips JA.

I agree in the judgment of the President which I have had the advantage of reading in draft. Chernov JA.

I agree with Winneke P that, for the reasons given by him, the conviction in this case should be set aside and a new trial ordered. I merely wish to deal briefly with some matters concerning the admissibility of the opinion evidence of Dr Castle and Mr Campbell.

Although I have similar misgivings to those of the President about the matter, I shall assume for present purposes that there exists an organised body of knowledge and experience concerned with determining whether a wound on a person has been self-inflicted. On that basis, expert testimony in the form of evidence on that subject may be permissible albeit only from a person who is relevantly skilled and it is for the trial judge to be satisfied that the witness possesses such qualifications, whether they be acquired by study or experience or both: Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486 at 491-2 per Dixon CJ and at 501-2 per Menzies J; R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45 at 46 per King CJ. Thus, the central question here is whether Dr Castle and Mr Campbell were sufficiently qualified to give opinion evidence as to whether the applicant’s wounds were self-inflicted. Put more specifically, the question is whether through study or experience or both, they gained the required degree of skill in determining whether a wound was self-inflicted or was caused by a third party.

In my view, on the evidence before the court, neither of those witnesses had the requisite degree of expertise to permit him to give opinion evidence on this issue. No relevant knowledge was gained by them through study. Unlike Drs Wells and Collins, for example, they did not study the characteristics of wounds over a long period of time with the view to interpreting their cause, including self-infliction. They engaged in no other relevant studies. Mr Campbell said that he had read medical texts which made mention of stab wounds, but that was a long time ago and, in any event, they did not deal specifically with the causes of wounds. The writings were essentially concerned with the treatment of wounds. Moreover, he agreed in cross-examination that he had not read any articles or texts which set out criteria for judging whether or not wounds have been self-inflicted.

Similarly, in my view, the professional experience of those witnesses did not qualify them as experts in the relevant area. In the case of Dr Castle, his relevant experience was confined to the treatment of self-inflicted wounds in the course of his medical practice. Many of them were sustained in an industrial context and some were the result of attempts by patients to commit suicide. He said that he was also involved with several murders where the victim had died of stab wounds. But there was no evidence that Dr Castle had any experience in determining by reference to objective standards (or at all) whether a stab wound was self-inflicted or was caused by a third party. Moreover, the method of reasoning used by him in arriving at his opinion demonstrates that he had no expertise in the area in question and that he did not rely on any scientific basis to reach his opinion: see R v Bonython [1984] 38 SASR 45 Bonython at 47 per King CJ. As the President has made clear in his judgment, Dr Castle’s examination of the applicant’s wounds was very brief and hurried and was, in any event, not carried out for the purpose of determining whether they were self-inflicted. His principal concern was to establish the seriousness of the wounds for the purpose of deciding whether they could be adequately treated at the Stawell Hospital or whether they required treatment at the larger and better equipped Wimmera Base Hospital. His primary grounds for concluding that the wounds were self-inflicted were that they were superficial and that in his view, it was unlikely that the deceased would have inflicted them on the applicant without him doing something to stop her. Neither of those grounds involved medical expertise or any scientific learning or experience which was concerned with the method of establishing whether the wounds were self-inflicted.

So far as Mr Campbell is concerned, his experience in relation to knife wounds was also confined to the treatment of patients who sustained accidentally self-inflicted injuries, principally in industrial situations, particularly at the local abattoirs. He said that during his 10 year period as a surgeon he saw one or two patients a year with knife wounds to the chest or abdomen and a number of other smaller wounds to hands and fingers. But there was no evidence that he had experience in establishing by the application of a set of objective criteria, or otherwise, whether an injury was caused by a third party or whether it was self-inflicted. What he saw and treated in relation to patients from the abattoir, were wounds which were accidentally self-inflicted (although it can be assumed that he may have also treated patients who were accidentally wounded by fellow workers). But on the evidence, he was not called upon in his practice to assess and thus had no experience in assessing, whether a wound was self-inflicted or caused by the act of a third party. When a patient from the abattoir came to be treated by him, he was no doubt usually told whether the wound was self-inflicted or was caused by another person. No decision had to be made by Mr Campbell on that issue. Moreover, in forming his opinion, he did not rely on any scientific benchmarks. The principal basis on which he concluded that the wounds were self-inflicted was the apparent downward angle of the blade as was evidenced by the angulation of the wounds. Such an analysis, however, is self-evidently devoid of merit as Mr Campbell virtually conceded in cross-examination, since the angulation of the wound, by itself, does not necessarily indicate how the knife was wielded. In any event, the two witnesses who were probably qualified as experts in the relevant area, namely Drs Wells and Collins, said that the downward angulation of the knife was not significant in determining whether the wound was self-inflicted.

In my view, therefore, the totality of the relevant evidence showed that neither Dr Castle nor Mr Campbell had sufficient expertise to proffer an opinion as to whether the applicant’s wounds were self-inflicted. In my opinion, what Menzies J said in Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486Clark at 502 about the qualifications of the expert called in that case, is applicable to the two doctors in question. His Honour said:

This is not a case where a witness has some qualifications and it is in question whether they are sufficient to give his opinions the authority of an expert. If such were the case, any appellate court would give great weight to a decision of the trial judge admitting his opinion evidence and would but rarely form an independent opinion of its own upon the sufficiency of those qualifications. This, however, is a case where a review of his evidence reveals that the [witness in question] had no expert qualifications in the branch of knowledge upon which he was allowed to speak as an authority.

That this was the position may not have been apparent when the two doctors commenced to give their evidence. It should be borne in mind that his Honour did not have the benefit of a voir dire on this issue and the Crown had not made it clear what was the specialised field of knowledge or expertise. Nevertheless, by the time all the evidence was in, it showed that the doctors were not sufficiently qualified to express the opinions which they put before the jury. In those circumstances, it was open to his Honour to revisit his earlier ruling as to the admissibility of their opinions ( R v Bonython [1984] 38 SASR 45Bonython at 48) and, in the circumstances, direct that the jury disregard them: R v Christie [1914] AC 545 at 554-5 per Lord Atkinson. In my view, his Honour should have acceded to the application that was made on behalf of the applicant that he direct the jury to disregard the opinion evidence of the two doctors in question.

Apart from their evidence, the only other prosecution expert called on this issue was Dr Wells. His evidence was equivocal. Dr Collins’ evidence, of course, supported the defence case. Thus, absent the opinion evidence of Dr Castle and Mr Campbell and notwithstanding that there was other evidence on which the Crown could rely in support of its case on this point, the Crown case on this critical issue was weak or, to put it at its highest, not strong. But because the evidence of Dr Castle and Mr Campbell was left with the jury, there is a likelihood or at least a real risk that they took it into account and on that basis concluded that the applicant had stabbed himself in order to raise the false defence of provocation and that this showed a consciousness of guilt on his part. Once such a conclusion was reached, the only verdict that could have been returned was one of guilty.

In the circumstances, therefore, leaving the inadmissible opinions with the jury deprived the applicant of a fair chance of an acquittal. Consequently, the conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered.

ORDER:
Leave to appeal granted;appeal allowed.

D M Salek for the applicant. W H Morgan-Payler QC and R E Carlin for the respondent.
Solicitors for the applicant: Victoria Legal Aid. Solicitor for the respondent: Peter Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions.

Categories: Breach of Expert Duties, Case Law Studies, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Limitations to The Immunity Rule

Comments (319) Trackbacks (19) Leave a comment Trackback

Chris

January 16, 2012 at 2:02 am

Reply

It is really a nice and helpful piece of info. I am satisfied that you shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
differences barrister solicitor

January 21, 2012 at 2:00 am

Reply

It is in point of fact a nice and helpful piece of info. I’m glad that you just shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
Chris

January 24, 2012 at 2:02 am

Reply

It’s actually a great and helpful piece of information. I am happy that you simply shared this useful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
barrister vs solicitor

January 25, 2012 at 2:00 am

Reply

It is really a nice and helpful piece of info. I’m happy that you simply shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
Chris

January 25, 2012 at 2:02 am

Reply

It’s truly a nice and useful piece of information. I’m happy that you shared this useful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.
differences barrister solicitor

January 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Reply

It’s in reality a nice and helpful piece of information. I am glad that you just shared this useful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
TUV Rheinland Firewoman

March 21, 2012 at 10:38 pm

Reply

Music began playing when I opened up this web page, so frustrating!
furnace repair seattle

March 22, 2012 at 5:41 am

Reply

Thankyou for this wondrous post, I am glad I discovered this website on yahoo.
45 kingsbridge garden circle mississauga

March 22, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Reply

You got a very wonderful website, Gladiolus I noticed it through yahoo.
colour contact lenses

March 22, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Reply

Very interesting info !Perfect just what I was searching for!
Thad Kurelko

March 22, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Reply

not really relevant but i am sitting at the dumb air port and the only website i can logon to is this one good read anyway
read debt consolidation program

March 22, 2012 at 8:20 pm

Reply

I like this web blog its a master peace ! Glad I detected this on google .
Marla Friebel

March 23, 2012 at 6:48 am

Reply

Your house is valueble for me. Thanks!…
home page

March 24, 2012 at 2:24 am

Reply

Thank you for sharing with us, I believe this website really stands out : D.
conseil de prud hommes

March 24, 2012 at 6:00 am

Reply

Lovely just what I was looking for.Thanks to the author for taking his clock time on this one.
revlon mascara reviews

March 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Reply

Merely wanna comment that you have a very nice site, I the pattern it really stands out.
lumbar facet syndrome chat

March 24, 2012 at 3:34 pm

Reply

I regard something genuinely special in this site.
loan benefits online

March 24, 2012 at 6:25 pm

Reply

Yay google is my queen assisted me to find this outstanding internet site ! .
reptile cages

March 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm

Reply

I went over this web site and I think you have a lot of great info , saved to my bookmarks (:.
meek millz

March 25, 2012 at 1:07 am

Reply

hey there and thank you for your info ¡V I have certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical points using this website, as I experienced to reload the site lots of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but slow loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and can damage your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I¡¦m adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for a lot more of your respective fascinating content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..
Henriette Bogard

March 25, 2012 at 4:47 am

Reply

This website is mostly a walk-via for all the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse right here, and also you’ll positively uncover it.
payday advances review

March 25, 2012 at 5:18 am

Reply

I conceive this internet site holds some very wonderful info for everyone : D.
quick payday loans

March 25, 2012 at 9:07 am

Reply

I dugg some of you post as I thought they were very useful very helpful
beagle training

March 25, 2012 at 11:55 am

Reply

Some times its a pain in the ass to read what blog owners wrote but this web site is very user genial ! .
web is becoming a dentist worth it

March 25, 2012 at 8:59 pm

Reply

Its good as your other articles : D, thanks for putting up.
debts

March 25, 2012 at 11:58 pm

Reply

I like this web site because so much utile stuff on here : D.
debt consolidation in georgia on-line

March 26, 2012 at 9:32 am

Reply

Perfect work you have done, this site is really cool with fantastic information.
payday loan online

March 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Reply

You have brought up a very fantastic points , thankyou for the post.
cheap prescription sunglasses

March 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm

Reply

I saw a lot of website but I think this one has got something extra in it in it
cash fast article

March 27, 2012 at 12:02 am

Reply

Woh I enjoy your content , bookmarked ! .
compare christian debt

March 27, 2012 at 2:54 am

Reply

I like the helpful info you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I am quite sure I will learn a lot of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!
ftp sites

March 27, 2012 at 3:38 am

Reply

Glad to be one of several visitants on this amazing website : D.
kitchen storage

March 27, 2012 at 8:23 am

Reply

You have brought up a very great details , appreciate it for the post.
swingers clubs melbourne

March 27, 2012 at 11:49 am

Reply

I like this site so much, saved to bookmarks .
asian food shopping

March 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Reply

I am glad to be a visitor of this sodding web site! , thankyou for this rare information! .
business coaching

March 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Reply

You have mentioned very interesting details ! ps decent site.
look into home equity rate

March 27, 2012 at 6:16 pm

Reply

Some truly wonderful content on this website , appreciate it for contribution.
accident at work compensation

March 27, 2012 at 10:39 pm

Reply

Some truly great posts on this website , appreciate it for contribution.
konto firmowe

March 27, 2012 at 11:59 pm

Reply

Really useful list!
brand marketing

March 28, 2012 at 2:55 am

Reply

I really like your writing style, superb information, appreciate it for putting up : D.
trophies football

March 28, 2012 at 4:22 am

Reply

Lovely just what I was searching for.Thanks to the author for taking his clock time on this one.
apple ipod touch 5g

March 28, 2012 at 4:41 am

Reply

Woh I enjoy your posts , saved to bookmarks ! .
cheat farmville

March 28, 2012 at 6:28 am

Reply

I like this web blog so much, bookmarked .
wppsi

March 28, 2012 at 9:54 am

Reply

I saw a lot of website but I think this one has something extra in it in it
serigraphie tee shirt

March 28, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Reply

Appreciate it for all your efforts that you have put in this. very interesting information.
payroll service

March 28, 2012 at 2:28 pm

Reply

Its excellent as your other blog posts : D, thankyou for posting .
beautiful people

March 28, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Reply

I don’t ordinarily comment but I gotta admit regards for the post on this amazing one : D.
social media for small business

March 28, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Reply

Really nice design and fantastic content material , nothing at all else we need : D.
rap beats

March 28, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Reply

Would love to incessantly get updated great website ! .
a guide to rottweiler puppy pictures

March 29, 2012 at 12:24 am

Reply

I am perpetually thought about this, thanks for posting .
colorado mortgages

March 29, 2012 at 4:54 am

Reply

Its excellent as your other blog posts : D, thanks for putting up.
investigate collision insurance

March 29, 2012 at 9:53 am

Reply

I conceive you have remarked some very interesting details , regards for the post.
cheap equity loan

March 29, 2012 at 10:33 am

Reply

I like the helpful info you provide in your articles. I¡¦ll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I’m quite sure I will learn a lot of new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!
besticken

March 29, 2012 at 10:44 am

Reply

Great post, I think blog owners should acquire a lot from this blog its rattling user pleasant.
best electric pressure washer

March 29, 2012 at 11:30 am

Reply

Thank you for sharing with us, I believe this website really stands out : D.
your new jersey insurance

March 29, 2012 at 11:50 am

Reply

Really fantastic info can be found on site .
twin bed sheets

March 29, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Reply

Very interesting subject , appreciate it for putting up.
safe ftp transfer big files

March 29, 2012 at 4:53 pm

Reply

I as well conceive thence , perfectly written post! .
spinning bicycles

March 29, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Reply

Very instructive and great structure of written content , now that’s user genial (:.
home mortgage loan article

March 30, 2012 at 2:46 am

Reply

I too believe so , perfectly indited post! .
debt consolidation firm

March 30, 2012 at 3:40 am

Reply

I got what you mean , thankyou for posting .Woh I am glad to find this website through google.
fast cash advances information

March 30, 2012 at 5:16 am

Reply

I dugg some of you post as I cerebrated they were very helpful invaluable
goibibo discount code

March 30, 2012 at 9:54 am

Reply

Some really interesting information, well written and loosely user pleasant.
airtel dth number

March 30, 2012 at 10:27 am

Reply

Would love to incessantly get updated great website ! .
incontinence treatment

March 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm

Reply

I am glad to be one of many visitants on this outstanding web site (:, thankyou for posting .
jams world

March 31, 2012 at 11:41 pm

Reply

We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with valuable information to work on. You have done a formidable job and our entire community will be grateful to you.
acai beeren kaufen

April 1, 2012 at 1:06 am

Reply

Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It’s a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I’m not sure I’d want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.
e cigarette juice reviews

April 1, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Reply

If you’re still on the fence: grab your favorite earphones, head down to a Best Buy and ask to plug them into a Zune then an iPod and see which one sounds better to you, and which interface makes you smile more. Then you’ll know which is right for you.
download free itunes gift card generator

April 2, 2012 at 9:39 am

Reply

Perfect piece of work you have done, this site is really cool with fantastic info .
crossfit shoes for wide feet

April 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Reply

Zune and iPod: Most people compare the Zune to the Touch, but after seeing how slim and surprisingly small and light it is, I consider it to be a rather unique hybrid that combines qualities of both the Touch and the Nano. It’s very colorful and lovely OLED screen is slightly smaller than the touch screen, but the player itself feels quite a bit smaller and lighter. It weighs about 2/3 as much, and is noticeably smaller in width and height, while being just a hair thicker.
associates degree in business

April 3, 2012 at 1:31 am

Reply

Between me and my husband we’ve owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I’ve settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.
best online psychics email

April 3, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Reply

Hey. Cool article. There’s a problem with the web site in internet explorer, and you might want to check this… The browser is the marketplace chief and a huge component of other people will leave out your wonderful writing because of this problem.
Fay Bunde

April 3, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Reply

Awesome web page you have here. I’ll be visiting more often. Keep up the awesome work!
chicago air conditioning and heating repair

April 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm

Reply

I just added your site to my blog roll, I hope you would take into consideration doing the same.
snoreguard

April 5, 2012 at 8:39 am

Reply

Deference to website author , some great selective information .
loft design

April 7, 2012 at 3:06 pm

Reply

Some genuinely marvelous work on behalf of the owner of this internet site , utterly outstanding articles .
savings account payday loans

April 8, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Reply

I am happy that I observed this web site, just the right info that I was looking for! .
gas drilling

April 11, 2012 at 6:44 pm

Reply

Thanks for all your efforts that you have put in this. very interesting info .
pat tesing

April 11, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Reply

Only wanna comment on few general things, The website style is perfect, the content is very excellent : D.
eco tourism

April 12, 2012 at 7:29 am

Reply

I am not very wonderful with English but I find this very easygoing to translate.
creating a resume in microsoft word 2007

April 12, 2012 at 8:20 pm

Reply

Hey. Neat post. There’s a problem with your web site in internet explorer, and you may want to test this… The browser is the market chief and a big section of other folks will pass over your wonderful writing due to this problem.
no fax payday loan

April 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Reply

Exactly what I was looking for, appreciate it for posting .
read

April 13, 2012 at 4:01 pm

Reply

I am impressed with this website , rattling I am a big fan .
cystic acne treatment

April 15, 2012 at 3:39 am

Reply

Hey. Neat article. There’s a problem with the site in firefox, and you may want to test this… The browser is the marketplace chief and a good component to other people will leave out your excellent writing because of this problem.
porno film

April 16, 2012 at 7:29 am

Reply

looking into the heart without knowing the end … Selfishness and ugliness is never to prefer to share
hcg wholesale warehouse bulk

April 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Reply

Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It’s a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I’m not sure I’d want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.
disability insurance rates

April 16, 2012 at 9:34 pm

Reply

I like your writing style truly loving this web site .
research fast payday loans

April 16, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Reply

I like the valuable information you provide in your articles. I¡¦ll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I’m quite certain I¡¦ll learn plenty of new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!
prawnik kraków

April 18, 2012 at 7:59 am

Reply

There are some fascinating time limits on this article but I don’t know if I see all of them center to heart. There may be some validity however I’ll take maintain opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we wish more! Added to FeedBurner as effectively
lizboston

April 18, 2012 at 9:25 pm

Reply

Excellent post. Thumbs up.
prawnik kraków

April 18, 2012 at 11:19 pm

Reply

*An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing a little analysis on this. And he in fact bought me breakfast because I found it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love reading more on this topic. If possible, as you become expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more details? It is highly helpful for me. Big thumb up for this blog post!
pozycjonowanie stron

April 20, 2012 at 9:03 am

Reply

Finally i found sth interesting
Boxing Classes Chicago

April 20, 2012 at 10:30 am

Reply

Hmm is anyone else having problems with the pictures on this blog loading? I’m trying to determine if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.
San Diego Photographer

April 20, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Reply

Muchos Gracias for your blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.
Certificate in food handling

April 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Reply

I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you make this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz respond as I’m looking to create my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. thanks
pozycjonowanie

April 22, 2012 at 5:02 am

Reply

Wow, thank you for such a great post!
personal injury lawyer San Diego

April 22, 2012 at 10:13 am

Reply

Really informative blog post. Really Cool.
Cufflinks

April 24, 2012 at 8:39 pm

Reply

Hi! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could find a captcha plugin for my comment form? I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having difficulty finding one? Thanks a lot!
First aid Sunshine

April 25, 2012 at 10:50 am

Reply

Hi! Do you know if they make any plugins to protect against hackers? I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard on. Any recommendations?
Employee engagement

April 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Reply

I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz reply as I’m looking to construct my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. thanks
more information

April 26, 2012 at 9:38 am

Reply

Thanks so much for the post.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.
skin care salon

April 30, 2012 at 9:57 pm

Reply

Great post.Really thank you! Keep writing.
social security lawyer los angeles

April 30, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Reply

Fantastic post.Thanks Again. Really Cool.
fsc teak

May 1, 2012 at 7:34 am

Reply

I loved your article post. Fantastic.
Gail Suit

May 1, 2012 at 7:51 am

Reply

Appreciate you sharing, great article.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
RSA Queensland

May 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Reply

Do you have a spam issue on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; we have created some nice procedures and we are looking to swap methods with other folks, why not shoot me an e-mail if interested.
disability lawyer los angeles

May 1, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Reply

Im grateful for the article post.Really thank you! Much obliged.
Photographer San Diego

May 4, 2012 at 12:08 am

Reply

Major thanks for the article.Much thanks again. Want more.
Photographers

May 4, 2012 at 1:12 am

Reply

Im grateful for the article.Really thank you! Much obliged.
San Diego Amsoil Dealer

May 4, 2012 at 6:53 am

Reply

Thank you for your post.Much thanks again. Really Great.
Swiss replica watches

May 4, 2012 at 12:23 pm

Reply

Thanks for one’s marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and definitely will come back sometime soon. I want to encourage continue your great work, have a nice weekend!
Office partitioning

May 7, 2012 at 4:50 pm

Reply

Woah! I’m really digging the template/theme of this site. It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s very difficult to get that “perfect balance” between user friendliness and appearance. I must say you have done a very good job with this. Additionally, the blog loads very fast for me on Internet explorer. Exceptional Blog!
personal injury lawyer San Diego

May 7, 2012 at 6:37 pm

Reply

Say, you got a nice blog. Will read on…
Trade Show Booth

May 7, 2012 at 7:31 pm

Reply

Thank you ever so for you article post.Really thank you!
Edward Samber

May 8, 2012 at 5:32 am

Reply

Hey, thanks for the article post.Really thank you! Great.
San Diego Roofer

May 8, 2012 at 3:04 pm

Reply

Im grateful for the article.Much thanks again. Fantastic.
Auto Repair San Diego

May 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Reply

Looking forward to reading more. Great article post.Much thanks again. Awesome.
San Diego skin care

May 9, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Reply

I cannot thank you enough for the article.Thanks Again. Will read on…
personal injury attorney San Diego

May 10, 2012 at 6:01 am

Reply

Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic blog.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.
Shamballa bracelet

May 10, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Reply

It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d most certainly donate to this fantastic blog! I suppose for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to brand new updates and will share this site with my Facebook group. Chat soon!
portable safes

May 11, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Reply

Yay google is my queen aided me to find this great site! .
company website

May 11, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Reply

Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Very useful information specially the last part 🙂 I care for such information a lot. I was seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Pest Control San Diego

May 11, 2012 at 5:59 pm

Reply

I am so grateful for your post. Will read on…
San Diego Photographer

May 11, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Reply

I cannot thank you enough for the blog article.
sac lancel

May 12, 2012 at 9:13 am

Reply

Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again very soon!
wholesale from china

May 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm

Reply

You got a very wonderful website, Gladiolus I detected it through yahoo.
standing punching bag

May 13, 2012 at 3:29 am

Reply

I am impressed with this web site , really I am a big fan .
pool clarifier

May 13, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Reply

Very interesting topic , thanks for putting up.
International Medical Insurance

May 16, 2012 at 1:19 am

Reply

I really liked your blog post.Really thank you! Will read on…
ssd disability lawyer los angeles

May 17, 2012 at 12:38 am

Reply

Im grateful for the blog post.Really thank you! Really Cool.
Self Storage

May 19, 2012 at 8:26 am

Reply

We absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your post’s to be exactly I’m looking for. Do you offer guest writers to write content for you personally? I wouldn’t mind publishing a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write concerning here. Again, awesome blog!
San Diego Roofing Contractor

May 21, 2012 at 9:21 pm

Reply

I think this is a real great blog.Much thanks again. Fantastic.
BritneyGomez

May 23, 2012 at 2:36 am

Reply

Hello this is good page. I much like this.
UK business

May 23, 2012 at 9:21 pm

Reply

My spouse and I stumbled over here by a different web address and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to finding out about your web page for a second time.
MLB Picks

May 25, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Reply

I have no idea why I read so many blogs, but I’m glad I do so. I always come out learning at least one thing every day.
Gordon Ear

May 25, 2012 at 5:38 pm

Reply

I really like and appreciate your post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.
Free MLB Picks

May 25, 2012 at 10:41 pm

Reply

Very interesting Blog and simple answer of many questions. Keep up the good work!
personal injury attorney San Diego

May 26, 2012 at 1:53 am

Reply

Very good article.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
Cheapest International Insurance

May 26, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Reply

Great article.Much thanks again. Want more.
Painting Contractors San Diego

May 26, 2012 at 10:34 pm

Reply

Appreciate you sharing, great blog.Much thanks again. Much obliged.
Keneth Raymond

May 29, 2012 at 3:24 am

Reply

Fantastic post.Much thanks again. Really Great.
personal injury lawyers san diego

May 31, 2012 at 7:38 am

Reply

http://5gplan.com/?p=594
Claris Mennen

May 31, 2012 at 7:03 pm

Reply

http://www.fonec.info/?p=125741
International Medical Insurance

June 1, 2012 at 7:05 am

Reply

I really liked your article post.Really thank you!
Paramotor training

June 4, 2012 at 9:17 am

Reply

Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You obviously know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something informative to read?
San Diego medical spa

June 4, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Reply

http://terkini.web.id/video-uji-coba-senjata-laser-as.php
personal injury attorney Chula Vista

June 5, 2012 at 8:48 pm

Reply

I really enjoy the blog.Thanks Again. Awesome.
Trade Show Booth

June 7, 2012 at 5:56 am

Reply

I really liked your article.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
Immigration Attorney San Diego

June 7, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Reply

Im obliged for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…
La Jolla Water Damage

June 8, 2012 at 4:01 pm

Reply

Thanks a lot for the post.Really thank you! Great.
Pest Control San Diego

June 9, 2012 at 12:12 am

Reply

Major thanks for the post. Fantastic.
MLB Picks

June 9, 2012 at 6:49 am

Reply

I just added this blog site to my bookmarks. I look forward to more insightful posts.
MLB Picks

June 9, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Reply

Some really interesting yet unrelated comments on this post!
Free MLB Picks

June 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm

Reply

Hi. I just noticed that your site looks like it has a few code problems at the very top of your site’s page. I’m not sure if everybody is getting this same error when browsing your site? I am employing a totally different browser than most people, referred to as Opera, so that is what might be causing it? I just wanted to make sure you know. Thanks for posting some great postings and I’ll try to return back with a completely different browser to check things out!
Free Baseball Picks

June 10, 2012 at 1:29 am

Reply

I have no idea why I read so many blogs, but I’m glad I do so. I always come out learning at least one thing every day.
MLB Picks

June 10, 2012 at 8:53 am

Reply

It’s about time someone wrote a blog on this subject. I have thought about making a blog on this subject before, now I don’t need to. Thanks for the nice blog post.
MLB Picks

June 10, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Reply

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!
Baseball Picks

June 10, 2012 at 8:55 pm

Reply

I just added this blog to my Fav’s. Very well written blog piece!
medical spa

June 11, 2012 at 11:31 pm

Reply

Thanks for the article post.Thanks Again.
personal injury lawyer San Diego

June 12, 2012 at 2:45 am

Reply

A big thank you for your blog article. Really Cool.
Free MLB Picks

June 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Reply

Here we go again! I just spent several hours reading this and many other blogs. My wife says I have no life! I tell her I’m educating myself for when I get old. She said it’s to late for that! Anyways, I wanted to thank you for the great write up here. It was very insightful. I hope to read more of your blog posts in the upcoming months.
Baseball Picks

June 15, 2012 at 3:21 am

Reply

Great read here! I appreciate you making this nice blog.
MLB Picks

June 15, 2012 at 6:55 am

Reply

Resources like the one you mentioned here will be very useful to me! I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.
Free MLB Picks

June 15, 2012 at 5:36 pm

Reply

Last month I set up my own site and I’m trying to learn the best way to attract visitors. I discovered your blog listed on yahoo. It’s worthwhile to search for new information and read the best blogs out there as you’re learning. Thanks!
Free Baseball Picks

June 18, 2012 at 7:00 am

Reply

Have you considered adding video to your blog posts to keep the readers more entertained? I recently read through the post and its quite good…thanks for the share
Free Baseball Picks

June 18, 2012 at 10:35 am

Reply

Here we go again… I’m spending an extremely long time reading these blogs. Oh Well! It was worth it.
Free MLB Picks

June 18, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Reply

I never realized how much work it takes to start a blog. I just tried making one myself, not very easy! Keep up the good work.
Free MLB Picks

June 18, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Reply

It rained here all day, so I decided to read some blog posts. Very nice write up here!
paramotors

July 4, 2012 at 11:25 am

Reply

Greetings from Carolina! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to browse your site on my iphone during lunch break. I love the knowledge you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how fast your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, great blog!
Home Care Santa Monica

July 10, 2012 at 6:24 pm

Reply

Thanks-a-mundo for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.
San Diego Amsoil Dealer

July 14, 2012 at 4:44 am

Reply

Muchos Gracias for your blog post. Want more.
San Diego Photography

July 18, 2012 at 4:56 pm

Reply

Major thankies for the article.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
civil rights lawyer

July 21, 2012 at 5:37 am

Reply

Very interesting information!Perfect just what I was looking for!
click here for

July 22, 2012 at 6:43 am

Reply

I am impressed with this website , rattling I am a big fan .
black mold

July 22, 2012 at 10:31 am

Reply

I very lucky to find this web site on bing, just what I was searching for : D as well saved to fav.
medisoft

July 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Reply

Only a smiling visitant here to share the love (:, btw outstanding style .
mono disease

July 22, 2012 at 5:31 pm

Reply

Precisely what I was searching for, regards for posting .
indala

July 23, 2012 at 12:18 am

Reply

I love your writing style truly enjoying this website .
voice broadcasting

July 23, 2012 at 5:11 am

Reply

Really fantastic information can be found on weblog .
door entry

July 23, 2012 at 6:05 am

Reply

I like this website very much so much good information.
hawaiian flowers

July 23, 2012 at 6:18 am

Reply

Glad to be one of several visitants on this awing site : D.
city garage arlington

July 23, 2012 at 9:57 am

Reply

Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it’s really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I¡¦ll appreciate if you continue this in future. A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
payday loans

July 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Reply

Would love to perpetually get updated great web site! .
it support

July 23, 2012 at 9:02 pm

Reply

Glad to be one of several visitants on this awful internet site : D.
internet sailing holiday

July 24, 2012 at 12:30 am

Reply

I visited a lot of website but I think this one holds something extra in it in it
pr agency staffordshire

July 24, 2012 at 4:37 pm

Reply

Merely wanna input that you have a very nice website , I like the design and style it really stands out.
aficionadas aquaplaners sleipnirs predaytime

July 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Reply

But wanna say that this is very beneficial , Thanks for taking your time to write this.
sabika

July 24, 2012 at 6:53 pm

Reply

Its superb as your other articles : D, regards for posting .
online casino playing pounds

July 25, 2012 at 11:59 pm

Reply

I was looking at some of your blog posts on this website and I think this site is real instructive! Continue posting .
medical billing fraud

July 26, 2012 at 12:13 am

Reply

I believe you have observed some very interesting details , thanks for the post.
the infographic

July 26, 2012 at 12:16 am

Reply

Outstanding post, I believe website owners should learn a lot from this web site its real user genial .
Hipolito M. Wiseman

July 26, 2012 at 4:38 am

Reply

I am trying not to chime in to much, but I’m really loving this site, and hope this, as well as the excellent reviews some other people have written, will help you decide if it’s the right choice for you.
your website analysis

July 26, 2012 at 4:53 am

Reply

Some really nice stuff on this internet site , I like it.
bookcases

July 26, 2012 at 9:06 am

Reply

I always was concerned in this subject and stock still am, thanks for posting .
acting classes in los angeles

July 26, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Reply

I don’t usually comment but I gotta state thankyou for the post on this great one : D.
chicken houses

July 26, 2012 at 10:16 pm

Reply

Some truly prize blog posts on this site, saved to bookmarks .
get arbonne

July 26, 2012 at 11:57 pm

Reply

This web site is my intake , really wonderful design and style and perfect subject matter.
landscape architect phoenix

July 27, 2012 at 3:53 am

Reply

Very superb visual appeal on this internet site , I’d value it 10 10.
homestyle restaurant

July 27, 2012 at 4:58 am

Reply

Only wanna comment on few general things, The website style and design is perfect, the content is very good : D.
orange county auto accident lawyer

July 27, 2012 at 6:29 am

Reply

I like the valuable information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I’m quite sure I will learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!
discount appstar bbb

July 27, 2012 at 7:42 am

Reply

I gotta favorite this internet site it seems very useful very beneficial
keyword research tool

July 27, 2012 at 8:47 am

Reply

Just wanna state that this is very beneficial , Thanks for taking your time to write this.
postcard app iphone

July 27, 2012 at 9:11 am

Reply

I was wondering if you ever considered changing the page layout of your site? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two images. Maybe you could space it out better?
like

July 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm

Reply

Very interesting subject , regards for putting up.
electric power washer reviews

July 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Reply

Loving the info on this site, you have done outstanding job on the posts .
county saddles

July 27, 2012 at 8:27 pm

Reply

Some genuinely nice and utilitarian info on this site, as well I believe the design and style has got great features.
no deposit casino

July 28, 2012 at 2:12 am

Reply

I really enjoy studying on this internet site , it has wonderful posts .
chimney repair nyc

July 28, 2012 at 2:33 am

Reply

Exactly what I was looking for, appreciate it for posting .
compare alkaline water

July 28, 2012 at 11:20 am

Reply

Its superb as your other content : D, thankyou for putting up.
pet products

July 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm

Reply

Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Extremely useful info specially the last part 🙂 I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.
heavy bag

July 28, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Reply

Merely wanna remark that you have a very decent site, I enjoy the design it really stands out.
taino lopes discussions

July 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Reply

As soon as I observed this web site I went on reddit to share some of the love with them.
www.affiliatesmakemoney.com

July 30, 2012 at 10:16 am

Reply

I am glad to be one of the visitants on this outstanding website (:, appreciate it for posting .
digital marketing consultant

July 30, 2012 at 11:27 am

Reply

I like this site very much so much superb information.
san diego criminal lawyer info

July 30, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Reply

I am lucky that I noticed this website , precisely the right info that I was searching for! .
ergonomic chair

July 30, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Reply

Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the internet the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they just do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
electric power washer reviews

July 30, 2012 at 3:24 pm

Reply

Sweet website , super design and style , really clean and employ friendly .
marketing services

July 30, 2012 at 8:21 pm

Reply

Simply wanna comment that you have a very nice website , I like the style and design it actually stands out.
thumbnail

July 31, 2012 at 5:25 am

Reply

I don’t normally comment but I gotta say thanks for the post on this perfect one : D.
lipitor discount website

July 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Reply

As I website owner I think the subject material here is very good , thanks for your efforts.
quality link building

July 31, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Reply

I always was interested in this topic and stock still am, appreciate it for posting .
source

July 31, 2012 at 3:33 pm

Reply

I like this post, enjoyed this one thankyou for posting .
practice partner

July 31, 2012 at 11:24 pm

Reply

Dead indited subject matter, thankyou for selective information .
dog bite lawyer

August 1, 2012 at 1:06 am

Reply

Real great information can be found on blog .
the internet

August 1, 2012 at 4:57 am

Reply

Dead written written content , appreciate it for entropy.
bicicletas paseo

August 1, 2012 at 10:05 am

Reply

I saw a lot of website but I believe this one contains something special in it in it
blue contact lenses

August 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm

Reply

Real instructive and great body structure of subject matter, now that’s user pleasant (:.
truck accident lawyer

August 2, 2012 at 2:47 am

Reply

Appreciate it for helping out, fantastic info .
aria resort and casino

August 2, 2012 at 9:24 am

Reply

I truly enjoy studying on this website , it contains wonderful posts .
targeted website traffic

August 2, 2012 at 10:07 am

Reply

I really enjoy looking at on this site, it has got superb content .
advertiser

August 4, 2012 at 7:54 am

Reply

As soon as I noticed this site I went on reddit to share some of the love with them.
dental practice sales

August 5, 2012 at 1:37 am

Reply

You are my inhalation , I own few web logs and rarely run out from to post : (.
view site

August 5, 2012 at 3:30 am

Reply

I consider something really special in this site.
turbo fire reviews

August 5, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Reply

Thank you for sharing with us, I conceive this website truly stands out : D.
contractor insurance

August 6, 2012 at 3:43 am

Reply

Just wanna remark that you have a very nice site, I like the design it really stands out.
success

August 6, 2012 at 10:14 am

Reply

Some really howling work on behalf of the owner of this site, dead outstanding content .
beautiful woman article

August 6, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Reply

Yeah bookmaking this wasn’t a high risk determination great post! .
casino en ligne website

August 6, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Reply

Some really tremendous work on behalf of the owner of this website , dead great subject matter.
cash loan critique

August 6, 2012 at 11:32 pm

Reply

As I website possessor I conceive the content here is real great , appreciate it for your efforts.
commercial air conditioning repair encino

August 8, 2012 at 12:42 am

Reply

I like reading through and I think this website got some genuinely useful stuff on it! .
dnp cx-d80 re transfer card printer

August 8, 2012 at 6:43 am

Reply

Very interesting details you have mentioned , thankyou for posting .
zip hoodie

August 8, 2012 at 8:17 am

Reply

I consider something really special in this internet site .
ppi claims letter

August 8, 2012 at 10:07 am

Reply

I want reading through and I think this website got some truly useful stuff on it! .
creative services

August 8, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Reply

I am glad to be a visitor of this everlasting site ! , thanks for this rare info ! .
cheap debt consolidation program

August 9, 2012 at 2:26 am

Reply

I truly appreciate your piece of work, Great post.
vibromasseurs

August 9, 2012 at 9:04 am

Reply

I am impressed with this site, very I am a fan .
medical fraud

August 9, 2012 at 9:54 pm

Reply

I went over this web site and I conceive you have a lot of wonderful info , saved to bookmarks (:.
la jolla foot bunion surgery

August 9, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Reply

Would love to perpetually get updated outstanding website ! .
partner sites

August 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Reply

Wohh precisely what I was searching for, thanks for posting .
moving companies austin

August 11, 2012 at 9:21 am

Reply

I reckon something genuinely interesting about your web blog so I saved to bookmarks .
bachelor parties

August 11, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Reply

Some truly good information, Sword lily I noticed this.
green elephant boa blanket

August 12, 2012 at 3:26 am

Reply

You got a very fantastic website, Sword lily I noticed it through yahoo.
San Diego Roofer

August 12, 2012 at 4:28 am

Reply

Awesome article.Much thanks again. Awesome.
yaz side effects

August 12, 2012 at 10:48 am

Reply

As I website owner I believe the written content here is very good , appreciate it for your efforts.
brisbane painter

August 13, 2012 at 4:06 am

Reply

Some really nice stuff on this website , I enjoy it.
go

August 13, 2012 at 11:45 am

Reply

Perfect work you have done, this website is really cool with wonderful info .
power washers reviews

August 13, 2012 at 8:53 pm

Reply

I very pleased to find this internet site on bing, just what I was searching for : D also saved to bookmarks .
official link

August 14, 2012 at 9:06 am

Reply

Unquestionably believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
hoodie printing

August 14, 2012 at 10:50 am

Reply

Some genuinely nice stuff on this internet site , I it.
website

August 14, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Reply

I am glad to be a visitant of this utter website ! , thankyou for this rare info ! .
rent electrician services north hollywood

August 15, 2012 at 4:56 pm

Reply

I am happy that I detected this web blog , precisely the right info that I was searching for! .
buy backlinks

August 15, 2012 at 10:47 pm

Reply

I like this web blog very much, Its a very nice situation to read and incur information.
brisbane painters site

August 16, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Reply

Some really interesting details you have written. Assisted me a lot, just what I was searching for : D.
click

August 16, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Reply

I envy your work , thankyou for all the informative articles .
Trade Show Booth

August 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Reply

Thank you ever so for you blog article. Fantastic.
visit

August 17, 2012 at 3:56 am

Reply

You got a very superb website, Glad I noticed it through yahoo.
electric chain saw review

August 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Reply

Very interesting information!Perfect just what I was looking for!
Matthew C. Kriner

August 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Reply

So very true….Thanks for blogging this….
Cilais Vigara

August 22, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Reply

Fuck the system – GAMBLE AND SMOKE VIAGRA – XXX PORN CLICK ABOVE
teak wood floors

August 31, 2012 at 6:22 pm

Reply

Fantastic blog.Much thanks again. Much obliged.
San Diego Painter

September 3, 2012 at 11:39 pm

Reply

Very good blog post. Keep writing.
Xanax

September 7, 2012 at 11:03 pm

Reply

You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the issue and found most individuals will go along with with your website.
medical spa

September 13, 2012 at 4:21 pm

Reply

Hey, thanks for the article post.Much thanks again. Cool.
San Diego Therapist

September 21, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Reply

Major thanks for the article post.Really thank you! Awesome.
San Diego Photographer

September 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Reply

Really appreciate you sharing this post. Fantastic.
Jeanetta Consalvo

October 2, 2012 at 11:15 pm

Reply

Very good blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.
San Diego Hardwood Flooring

October 6, 2012 at 6:17 am

Reply

I think this is a real great blog post.Really thank you! Great.
San Diego Roofer

October 7, 2012 at 12:23 am

Reply

Major thankies for the blog post.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
Home Care Providers Los Angeles

October 12, 2012 at 3:44 am

Reply

Very informative blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.
cialis

October 13, 2012 at 7:11 am

Reply

I was very pleased to find this web-site.I wanted to thanks for your time for this wonderful read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.
Homecare Providers Los Angeles

October 18, 2012 at 1:44 am

Reply

wow, awesome article post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
cialis

October 18, 2012 at 6:55 pm

Reply

I intended to post you one bit of word just to say thanks the moment again relating to the incredible tips you’ve featured on this site. It is certainly seriously generous of people like you to convey unreservedly all that most of us might have supplied as an electronic book to earn some cash for themselves, mostly considering the fact that you might have done it in case you considered necessary. The creative ideas in addition served to provide a fantastic way to fully grasp that most people have a similar desire just like my very own to realize much more with reference to this condition. I’m certain there are a lot more pleasurable situations ahead for individuals who look into your blog post.
Pest Control

October 21, 2012 at 2:05 am

Reply

I really like and appreciate your post.Really thank you! Fantastic.
viagra

October 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Reply

Thanks for each of your hard work on this web site. Kate loves going through investigation and it’s really obvious why. Almost all know all regarding the dynamic mode you provide efficient solutions on your blog and as well as welcome response from website visitors on the area of interest while our girl is discovering so much. Have fun with the rest of the new year. You are conducting a superb job.
San Diego Roofer

October 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Reply

Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic blog post.Really thank you! Cool.
Home Care Beverly Hills

October 28, 2012 at 7:53 am

Reply

Im obliged for the post.Thanks Again. Great.
fotografo chile

October 30, 2012 at 6:30 am

Reply

wow, awesome blog post.Thanks Again. Really Great.
viagra

November 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Reply

Your place is valueble for me. Thanks!…
cialis

November 7, 2012 at 5:23 pm

Reply

You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the issue and found most individuals will go along with with your website.
Click here

November 11, 2012 at 6:16 am

Reply

Major thankies for the article. Cool.
cialis

November 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm

Reply

You should take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this site!
San Diego Photography

November 18, 2012 at 10:51 am

Reply

Awesome post.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.
Junior Culley

December 5, 2012 at 3:10 am

Reply

I am so grateful for your blog.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…
Andrew Pelt

December 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm

Reply

You should take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this site!
Pest Control

December 12, 2012 at 3:06 am

Reply

Great, thanks for sharing this article.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
Painting San Diego

December 21, 2012 at 5:52 am

Reply

I value the article post.Really thank you! Fantastic.
Boulder Tree Service

December 21, 2012 at 7:11 am

Reply

I really enjoy the blog article.Really thank you! Cool.
Home Care Santa Monica

January 2, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Reply

Im thankful for the article post.Really thank you!
Pest Control San Diego

January 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm

Reply

Wow, great article post.Much thanks again. Much obliged.
Viagra Online Without Prescription

January 2, 2013 at 4:33 pm

Reply

Thank you so much for providing individuals with an exceptionally brilliant possiblity to read critical reviews from here. It is often so pleasant and as well , jam-packed with a lot of fun for me personally and my office acquaintances to search the blog at minimum 3 times per week to study the new guidance you will have. And indeed, I am certainly impressed with your dazzling creative ideas you give. Some 1 facts on this page are definitely the most efficient we’ve ever had.
San Diego Photographer

January 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Reply

A big thank you for your blog.Thanks Again. Want more.
Eddy Pfefferkorn

January 5, 2013 at 3:47 pm

Reply

Really appreciate you sharing this blog.Really thank you! Cool.
Roof Repair San Diego

January 7, 2013 at 10:08 am

Reply

I value the post.Thanks Again. Want more.
Patrick Dice

January 9, 2013 at 11:11 pm

Reply

Thank you ever so for you post.Much thanks again. Will read on…
Tracee Pavliska

January 11, 2013 at 1:20 am

Reply

Really informative blog article.Thanks Again. Really Cool.
teak wood flooring

January 15, 2013 at 1:30 am

Reply

I really liked your blog.Thanks Again. Great.
teak wood

January 18, 2013 at 5:02 am

Reply

Wow, great post.Really thank you! Much obliged.
Home Care Providers Los Angeles

January 18, 2013 at 5:41 am

Reply

Awesome post. Really Cool.
medical spa San Diego

January 23, 2013 at 4:05 am

Reply

Great article post.Really looking forward to read more.
Milford Meray

January 25, 2013 at 3:52 am

Reply

Thanks again for the blog.Really thank you! Really Great.
Cheapest International Insurance

January 26, 2013 at 3:58 am

Reply

Thanks-a-mundo for the blog article. Fantastic.
skin care salon

January 31, 2013 at 9:21 am

Reply

A round of applause for your blog post.Thanks Again. Awesome.
International Health Insurance

February 2, 2013 at 7:32 am

Reply

wow, awesome article post.Thanks Again. Really Great.
e-ticaret

June 11, 2013 at 9:36 pm

Reply

Reading by way of your nice content material, will help me to do so sometimes.
e-ticaret

September 9, 2013 at 10:57 pm

Reply

There’s noticeably a bundle to understand this. I assume you’ve produced particular good factors in functions also.
nice penalty removal

June 19, 2014 at 2:05 am

Reply

gaH0aD I really enjoy the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.
xdnbfmim@gmail.com

June 20, 2014 at 7:23 am

Reply

It’s exhausting to seek out knowledgeable folks on this topic, however you sound like you already know what you’re talking about! Thanks
FFXIV Gil PS3 http://www.power-leveling-service.org/ffxiv-final-fantasy-xiv/character-ps3
cheap seo services

July 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm

Reply

aR2vKg Very neat article post.Much thanks again. Want more.
bunkk gear

January 23, 2016 at 10:39 am

Reply

Hello to every body, it’s my first go to see of this web site; this web site carries remarkable and genuinely excellent
stuff in support of visitors.

March 23, 2014 at 8:41 am

eWTOIadTEv4
March 26, 2014 at 8:57 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01RMkcQ-nwM
March 26, 2014 at 3:30 pm

pre owned ford
April 1, 2014 at 10:28 pm

kansas city ford car dealers
April 3, 2014 at 6:13 pm

my dog has arthritis
April 4, 2014 at 5:33 am

posicionar web
July 1, 2014 at 4:07 am

muscle building supplements for men 2011
July 31, 2014 at 2:33 am

biopatch dressing research use in home health
August 25, 2014 at 2:29 am

Where Can I Get Xanax Online
September 7, 2014 at 9:41 am

family law facilitator
September 7, 2014 at 4:40 pm

george eads salary
September 8, 2014 at 12:55 pm

ri division of motor vehicles
September 8, 2014 at 4:12 pm

kings island water park
September 8, 2014 at 6:19 pm

kitchenaid stainless mixer
September 9, 2014 at 6:45 am

denmark adapter plug
September 9, 2014 at 10:36 am

route 66 rendezvous
September 22, 2014 at 3:17 am

elite dating
February 18, 2016 at 4:48 am

online criminal justice masters' degree programs
November 16, 2020 at 11:00 am

Stop Thinking About Food

Scientific Evidence and Law

The contrasts between law and science are often described in binary terms: science seeks truth, the law does justice; science is descriptive, but law is prescriptive; science emphasises progress, whereas the law emphasises process... [C]omparisons between science and the law often celebrate science's unique commitment to systematic testing of observations and its willingness to submit its conclusions to critical probing and falsification. Hence, the Intellect, Reason and Judgment as conclusions and verdicts of the Cognitive Faculties by which laws are prescribed a priori and science is described as the scientific cognition a priori within a posteriori truth. (Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, 'Digital Metadata, Timestamp and The Theory of Relativity' - Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom, Published Nov. 2010)

Wissenschaftlicher Beweis und Gesetz

Die Kontraste zwischen Gesetz und Wissenschaft werden häufig in den binären Bezeichnungen beschrieben: Wissenschaft sucht Wahrheit, das Gesetz tut Gerechtigkeit; Wissenschaft ist beschreibend, aber Gesetz ist vorschreibend; Wissenschaft hebt Fortschritt hervor, während t er Gesetz hervorhebt Prozeß... Vergleiche zwischen Wissenschaft und dem Gesetz feiern häufig einzigartige Verpflichtung der Wissenschaft zur systematischen Prüfung von Beobachtungen und seine Bereitwilligkeit, seine Zusammenfassungen beim kritischen Prüfen und bei der Fälschung einzureichen. Folglich wird der Intellekt, der Grund und das Urteil als Zusammenfassungen und Urteilssprüche der kognitiven Lehrkörper, von denen Gesetzen einem priori und eine Wissenschaft vorgeschrieben werden, als das wissenschaftliche Erkennen ein priori innerhalb a posteriori der Wahrheit beschrieben. (Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, ' Digital Metadata, Zeitstempel und die Theorie Relativität ' - der Universität von Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson von Allee, Cambridge CB3 9EW Vereinigtes Königreich, November 2010)

Évidence et loi scientifiques

Les contrastes entre la loi et la science sont souvent décrits en termes binaires : la science cherche la vérité, la loi fait la justice; la science est descriptive, mais la loi est préscriptive ; la science souligne le progrès, tandis que la loi souligne des comparaisons de processus … entre la science et la loi célébrer souvent l'engagement unique de la science à l'essai systématique des observations et sa bonne volonté de soumettre ses conclusions au sondage et à la falsification critiques. Par conséquent, l'intellect, la raison et le jugement comme conclusions et verdicts des corps enseignant cognitifs par lesquels des lois sont prescrites a priori et la science est décrit comme connaissance scientifique a priori dans a posteriori la vérité. (Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, 'Digital Metadata, horodateur et la théorie d'université de relativité '- de Cambridge, avenue de 15 JJ Thomson, Cambridge CB3 9EW Royaume-Uni, édité novembre 2010)

Evidência e lei científicas

Os contrastes entre a lei e a ciência são descritos frequentemente em termos binários: a ciência procura a verdade, a lei faz a justiça; a ciência é descritiva, mas a lei é prescriptive; a ciência emfatiza o progresso, visto que a lei emfatiza comparações do processo … entre a ciência e a lei comemorar frequentemente o compromisso original da ciência a testar sistemático das observações e o seu voluntariedade submeter suas conclusões a sondar e a falsification críticos. Daqui, o intellect, a razão e o julgamento como conclusões e verdicts das faculdades cognitive por que as leis são prescritas a priori e a ciência são descritos como a cognição científica a priori dentro a posteriori da verdade. (Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, ' Digital Metadata, timestamp e a teoria da universidade do relativity ' - de Cambridge, avenida de 15 JJ Thomson, Cambridge CB3 9EW Reino Unido, Nov. 2010)

Prova e legge scientifiche

I contrasti fra legge e la scienza sono descritti spesso nei termini binari: la scienza cerca la verità, la legge fa la giustizia; la scienza è descrittiva, ma la legge è normativa; la scienza dà risalto al progresso, mentre la legge dà risalto ai confronti di processo … fra la scienza e la legge celebrare spesso l'impegno unico della scienza alla prova sistematica delle osservazioni e la relativa compiacenza presentare le relative conclusioni al sondaggio ed alla falsificazione critici. Quindi, il intellect, il motivo ed il giudizio come conclusioni e verdetti delle facoltà conoscitive da cui le leggi si prescrivono a priori e la scienza è descritto come la cognizione scientifica a priori all'interno a posteriori della verità. (Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, 'Digital Metadata, timestamp e la teoria dell'università di relatività '- di Cambridge, un viale di 15 JJ Thomson, Cambridge CB3 9EW Regno Unito, pubblicato novembre del 2010)

Научные доказательство и закон

Контрасты между законом и наукой часто описаны в бинарные термины: наука изыскивает правду, закон делает правосудие; наука описательна, но закон прескриптивен; наука подчеркивает прогресс, тогда как закон подчеркивает сравнения процесса ... между наукой и законом часто празднуйте принятие окончательного решения науки уникально к систематический испытывать замечаний и свою готовность представить свои заключения к критически зондировать и фальсифицированию. Следовательно, интеллект, причина и суждение как заключения и вердикты познавательных факультетов которыми законы предписаны a priori и наука описаны как научная познавательность a priori в пределах a posteriori правды. (Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, ' цифров Metadata, timestamp и теория университета релятивности ' - cambridge, бульвара 15 JJ Thomson, королевства cambridge CB3 9EW соединенного, NOV 2010)

Evidencia y ley científicas

Los contrastes entre la ley y la ciencia se describen a menudo en términos binarios: la ciencia busca verdad, la ley hace la justicia; la ciencia es descriptiva, pero la ley es preceptiva; la ciencia acentúa progreso, mientras que t él ley acentúa proceso… Los omparisons de C entre la ciencia y la ley celebran a menudo la comisión única de la ciencia a la prueba sistemática de observaciones y su buena voluntad de someter sus conclusiones a sondar y a la falsificación críticos. Por lo tanto, la intelecto, la razón y el juicio como conclusiones y los veredictos de las facultades cognoscitivas por quienes los leyes son prescritos a priori y la ciencia se describe como la cognición científica a priori dentro a posteriori de la verdad. (Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, ' Digital Metadata, timestamp y la teoría de la universidad de la relatividad ' - de Cambridge, avenida de 15 JJ Thomson, Cambridge CB3 9EW Reino Unido, noviembre de 2010)

Prova e legge scientifiche

科学的な証拠及び法律

法律と科学間の対照は頻繁に二進言葉で記述されている: 科学は真実を、法律する正義を追求する; 科学は説明的であるが、法律は規定する; t が彼法律プロセスを... 強調する一方、科学は進歩を強調する重大な精査と偽造に結論を堤出する科学と法律間の比較は頻繁に観察の組織的テストへ科学の独特な責任及び自発性を祝う。それ故に、法律がアプリオリに規定されると科学はposteriori の真実内の科学的な認知としてアプリオリに記述されている認識能力の結論として知性、理由及び判断そして評決。(Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim 、' デジタルMetadata 、ケンブリッジ、15 JJ Thomson の道、ケンブリッジ CB3 9EW イギリス、2010 年11 月の相対性' - 大学のタイムスタンプ及び理論)

科學證據和法律

對比在法律和科學之間經常被描述用二進制術語: 科學尋找真相, 法律申張正義; 科學是描寫的, 但法律是規定的; 科學強調進展, 但是法律強調過程... 比較在科學並且法律之間經常慶祝科學的獨特的承諾對系統測試觀察和它的自願遞交它的結論給重要探查和偽造。因此, 智力、原因和評斷作為法律規定演繹認知教職員的結論和定案並且科學被描述作為科學認知演繹在推納真相之內。(Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, ' 數字式 Metadata, 時間戳和劍橋, 15 JJ Thomson 大道, 劍橋 CB3 9EW 英國相對' - 大學的理論, 被出版2010 11月)

Anti Cyber Forensics – The Art of Counter-Cyber Forensics

Leave a reply to download free itunes gift card generator Cancel reply

MOHAMAD IZAHAM MOHAMED YATIM

Knowledge is Free to Everyone

Research Funds Sponsorship

Mobile:(006)-019-2787830 IM:codegenius@hotmail.com

Scientific Evidence and Law

Wissenschaftlicher Beweis und Gesetz

Évidence et loi scientifiques

Evidência e lei científicas

Prova e legge scientifiche

Научные доказательство и закон

Evidencia y ley científicas

Prova e legge scientifiche

科学的な証拠及び法律

科學證據和法律

Willard Van Orman Quine

Basic Ingredient and Methods of Attack / Defence Cycle in Cyber Forensics Investigations (That Prosecution / Defence Must Establish and Substantiate Before Court):

Possession:

Contents of Electronic Evidence:

Networking:

Categories

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Top Rated

Top Clicks

Email Subscription

Blog Statistics

Anti Cyber Forensics

Anti Cyber Forensics – The Art of Counter-Cyber Forensics

Share this:

Related

Leave a reply to download free itunes gift card generator Cancel reply

MOHAMAD IZAHAM MOHAMED YATIM

Knowledge is Free to Everyone

Research Funds Sponsorship

Mobile:(006)-019-2787830 IM:codegenius@hotmail.com

Scientific Evidence and Law

Wissenschaftlicher Beweis und Gesetz

Évidence et loi scientifiques

Evidência e lei científicas

Prova e legge scientifiche

Научные доказательство и закон

Evidencia y ley científicas

Prova e legge scientifiche

科学的な証拠及び法律

科學證據和法律

Willard Van Orman Quine

Basic Ingredient and Methods of Attack / Defence Cycle in Cyber Forensics Investigations (That Prosecution / Defence Must Establish and Substantiate Before Court):

Possession:

Contents of Electronic Evidence:

Networking:

Categories

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Top Rated

Top Clicks

Email Subscription

Blog Statistics

Anti Cyber Forensics