//
[2025] NSWSC 785
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-06-17
Campbell J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cairney (No 20) [2025] NSWSC 785
Hearing dates: 11 April 2025, 19, 21-23, 26-30 May, 2-6, 10-12, 16-17 June 2025
Date of orders: 17 June 2025
Decision date: 17 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision: Leave refused pursuant to s 50 Evidence Act to adduce summary of DNA table as evidence of contents of documents.
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility of evidence – ruling on summary of DNA table – s 50 Evidence Act not satisfied – where the evidence can be given by reference to expert certificate and/or oral evidence – where crime scene evidence already given sufficiently establishes the basis for various matters contained in the expert's report.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 50, 60, 136
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Paul John Cairney (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
K Ratcliffe with S Allan (Solicitor Advocate)
(C Taylor with S Allan appearing on and after 23 June 2025 and Mr Allan appeared alone on 27 June 2025) (Crown)
S Climo (C Feiner appearing on and after 24 June 2025) (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitors for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s): 2022/381365
Publication restriction: Nil.
I am not satisfied, in the context of a murder trial that has gone for as long as this particular one, that it would not otherwise be possible to conveniently examine the evidence of Detective Senior Sergeant Moon because of the volume and complexity of the documents. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the condition that animates s 50 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (Evidence Act) has been made good.
However, I see no reason why the evidence cannot be given by reference to the expert certificate, marked as MFI-54 in its unredacted form in the trial, of Dr Summerell, being the relevantly qualified expert in forensic biology and DNA findings, provided that the matter the subject of an agreed exclusion between the parties is redacted from that document. To the extent to which there needs to be further exploration of the significance of this evidence, then it is the case that Dr Summerell is here, and she can give oral evidence about the matters, including by way of cross-examination, in the usual way.
It would seem to me that the description of the swabs taken by crime scene officers that are contained in Dr Summerell’s report are admissible under s 60 of the Evidence Act. To the extent there may be an issue about the truth of those matters which could be the subject of an application made under s 136 of the Evidence Act, I am of the view that the crime scene evidence already given sufficiently establishes the basis for those descriptors in relation to the various matters contained in the expert's report.
**********
R
Cairney