The Crown sought to adduce expert opinion evidence from a police accident reconstructionist regarding the speed of the defendant's vehicle at the time of impact with a pedestrian in a speeding charge.
The defence challenged admissibility on the grounds that the Searle method of speed calculation constitutes novel scientific evidence requiring special scrutiny, and alternatively, that the method was being used for a novel purpose.
The defence also argued that the cost-benefit analysis favoured exclusion.
The court admitted the evidence, finding that accident reconstruction methodologies are mathematical rather than scientific techniques, that the Searle method is not novel science, and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential harm to the trial process.
