The accused, Richard Walker, brought a motion to qualify Mr. David Pellerin as an expert witness in computer forensics and viruses to support his defence against charges of possessing, accessing, and making available child pornography.
The motion was dismissed.
The court found that Mr. Pellerin did not meet the threshold requirements for expert qualification, specifically lacking clear impartiality, independence, and unbiasedness due to a prior working relationship with the accused.
Furthermore, his proposed evidence was based on incomplete information and general knowledge, making its relevance and necessity tenuous.
The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the risk of unduly delaying the trial, confusing the jury, and leading to an unhelpful line of inquiry.
