Kyluk Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage (2013) 298 ALR 532

Facts: Defendant (D) (Kyluk) picked rare, endangered plants from protected lands. At sentencing, D objected to expert witness (W) (soil scientist) evidence regarding soil analysis comparing soil on shoes and at location and it was not allowed in. However, it relied on a particle size test that was not in evidence, nor conducted by that expert. The report did not reveal who did the testing, what was done, or the chain of facts giving rise to testing. As it lacked a proven factual basis (D relied on Heydon J’s dissent in Dasreef, arguing that the basis rule is adopted by Uniform Evidence Law), it was not admissible. This was a ground of appeal.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now