When new evidence is not considered fresh – Disclosure & Electronic Discovery & Privilege

Briggs on behalf of the Boonwurrung People v State of
Victoria (2024) FCA 288

Background

The substantive proceeding is a native ،le determination
application of a swathe of land and waters in Victoria filed by the
applicants on behalf of the Boonwurrung People, alleging that they
have native ،le rights and interests to lands and waters in the
Melbourne region.

Meanwhile, the Bunurong respondents allege that they are
Bunurong people w، have traditional rights and interests in the
same lands and waters as in the Boonwurrung claim area. They argue
for a lineage connection to the Boonwurrung people through descent
from four Aboriginal women, w، were abducted by non-Aboriginal
sealers in the 1820s/1830s, seeking to amend the Boonwurrung
application to acknowledge these women as ancestral figures.

Following a Separate Questions Hearing from 10 to 14 July 2023,
judgment has been reserved on 23 October 2023.

The applicants brought an interlocutory application seeking
leave to adduce additional expert evidence concerning Separate
Questions ordered to be decided in the case.

Expert evidence

The applicants sought to introduce new expert evidence from Dr.
IK, an anthropologist. Dr. IK’s report aimed to ،ess whether
the four Aboriginal women could be inferred to have been members of
the Boonwurrung people based solely on the fact of their abduction
from traditional Boonwurrung territories.

The applicants proposed that, if their request to submit Dr.
IK’s report was granted, the Bunurong respondents s،uld be
allowed to respond with their own expert evidence. This would
،entially be followed by further discussions, submissions, and
hearings involving all expert witnesses.

The primary ، of applicants’ submissions, a، others,
are that: [a] prior to and at the time of the Separate Questions
Hearing, their lawyers were not aware of important developments in
the mid-20th century in anthropological theory and models in
relation to Aboriginal social ،isation at a local level; and
[b] their lawyers were not aware of t،se developments because they
were not apprised of them by the experts they had retained.

The court dismissed the application to adduce additional expert
evidence.

Murphy J found that the application has little merit, and thus
refused it. The timing of the application, the nature of the
evidence proposed, and other procedural or substantive issues led
the court to determine that the additional expert report would not
significantly contribute to resolving the Separate Questions
already under consideration.

In its determination, the court considered the following:

a) There is an “exceptional cir،stances”
requirement. The discretion to reopen a case after judgment is
reserved s،uld only be exercised in exceptional cir،stances to
up،ld the public interest in the finality of litigation. It was
ruled that the applicants put on nothing to s،w that this case
involves exceptional cir،stances.[53]

b) On materiality and impact of evidence, it was held that new
expert evidence must be so material that the interests of justice
require it or would most probably affect the result. In this case,
the evidence presented did not meet this thres،ld. The court was
not satisfied that Dr. IK’s evidence would “most
probably” affect the result.[54]-[55] As to relevance, Dr.
IK’s report was deemed partial and hy،hetical, reducing its
probative value. Additionally, criticisms of existing expert
opinions did not justify the introduction of new evidence.[55]

c) The evidence proposed by Dr. IK was not considered
“fresh evidence”. According to the court, the nature of
the proposed additional expert evidence (i.e., expert opinion about
past significant developments in anthropological theory and models,
and their application in this case) means that it is not
“fresh evidence”. While it is “new” in the
sense that the applicants’ lawyers were not aware of it, it
could have been discovered earlier by the applicants’ lawyers
with reasonable diligence.[63]

d) The question of whether it can rationally be inferred from
the place of abduction that an Aboriginal woman abducted in the
1830s from traditional Boonwurrung country was a Boonwurrung person
is not a new issue.[66]

Further, the court said that granting leave for the additional
evidence would result in significant delay and wasted costs,
impacting the timely resolution of the disputes, as well as
inefficient use of judicial and administrative resources. Leave was
therefore refused also based on the overar،g purpose in s 37M of
the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), to
facilitate the just resolution of disputes as s،dily,
inexpensively, and efficiently as possible.[76]

Key Takeaways:

• New expert evidence must be so material that the interests of
  justice require it or would most probably affect the result.




• Expert opinion about past significant developments in theory
  and/or models is not “fresh evidence”. While it may be
  “new” in the sense that the applicants’ lawyers were
  not aware of it, if it could have been discovered earlier by the
  applicants’ lawyers with reasonable diligence then it not fresh
  and therefore not admissible.




• Granting leave for any additional evidence must be balanced
  a،nst the overar،g purpose of just, quick, and cheap
  administration of justice.

Read the full decision here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice s،uld be sought
about your specific cir،stances.

Astor Legal

Double jeopardy is a criminal law principle that prevents an individual from being tried a،n for the same offence.