NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : The Commissioner of Police v. Brady [2004] NSWCA 98 HEARING DATE(S) : 23 March 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 March 2004
JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 26,28; Beazley JA at 1; Bryson JA at 27 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS : EXPERT EVIDENCE - s.136 of Evidence Act 1995 - Operation - Standard of proof of expert evidence - Finding made "with great reluctance" - Operation of principle in Makita v Sprowles. - ERROR OF LAW - Insufficiency of evidence not an error in point of law - Circumstances in which judicial discretion may be erroneous in point of law - Operation of s.136 of Evidence Act 1995 - Weight of evidence not an error in point of law. Compensation Court Act 1984 LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 Police Regulation Superannuation Act 1906 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Limited (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 CASES CITED : House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Seltsam v McGuinness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 PARTIES : The Commissioner of Police (Appellant) Mark Bede Brady (Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40160/03 COUNSEL : M. Holmes (Solicitor) (Appellant) B.J. Gross QC/P. Dailly (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Legal Services NSW Police (Appellant) Taylor & Scott (Respondent)
LOWER COURT Compensation Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT CC 5170/01 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Armitage J JUDICIAL OFFICER :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40160/2003
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate