342 / 494
341
10.203.
We ruled during the Enquiry that Maj. Cobb-Smith would
be treated as an expert witness and that is the end of that matter. In
an article “Opinion Evidence” (1986) 60 ALJ 597 Gillies wrote at p.602:
“Expertise may be characterised broadly as
consisting of a body of knowledge and/or skills based
upon experience or training which concerns a subject
which is of such a nature that it can be grasped and
commented upon in an informed way by a person
with training and/or experience extending beyond
that possessed by the average person.”
10.204.
In our judgment, there are two essential preconditions to
be fulfilled for a person to qualify as an expert: (a) is the subject-
matter of the witness’s evidence an area for expert opinion; and (b) is
the witness actually skilled through study and/or experience in that
area. At para.10.108 we set out Maj. Cobb-Smith’s experience and
training. Since expert evidence is a question of fact, it is for us to
decide which witness’s evidence is preferable.
10.205.
With respect to Maj. Cobb-Smith’s evidence of the
condition of premises that he observed in 2016, he admitted that he
could not be sure if the marks of damage were caused by shrapnel in
2010. Our comments in para.10.180 were directed at what
Lt. Col. Sewell said that he observed in May 2010.
Re: Para.10.177 (formerly 10.135) – Summary of Responses
10.206.
(i) The differences in the witness statements of the two experts
are acknowledged.
(ii) Maj. Dixon’s statement was a summarised report to his
superiors and the Commission should not give undue weight
to its lack of detail.