Malone on behalf of the Western Kangoulu People v State of Queensland (No 4) [2025] FCA 36
Key takeaways
- Experts must have recognised and relevant qualifications in their field. A limited academic background may lead to judicial scepticism about an expert's expertise and consequently, the exclusion of the expert's report.
- Courts may assess not only an expert's academic credentials but also their professional experience and prior judicial determinations. A past ruling that an expert lacks sufficient qualification can undermine their credibility in future cases.
- Expert reports should align with the legal and evidentiary foundation of a case. An assertion that contradicts previously laid legal basis may reduce the relevance of the report.
In this case, an anthropological expert who had previously written reports and presented evidence in various courts was still found to have "doubtful qualifications".
Background
The Western Kangoulu people had sought a determination of native title over land surrounding Emerald in Queensland under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The claim, originally filed in May 2013, has been met with responses from the State of Queensland, the Commonwealth of Australia and numerous other parties with property interests in the area. The case, focusing on the existence of native title rights, without considering extinguishment, went before the Federal Court of Australia in late 2022. Only the applicant and the State participated. While judgment was reserved, discussions between the parties progressed toward a possible agreement.
In December 2024, Michael Paul Huet applied to join the proceedings, claiming to be a "Gaangalu" man with native title rights in the area. He argued that a determination favouring the Western Kangoulu people could diminish his own rights. A hearing was scheduled for January 2025, during which evidence was presented through affidavits from Mr Huet, the applicant's solicitor and a Crown Law representative. The Court declined to allow cross-examination of Mr Huet, considering it unnecessary. A map was submitted showing the Western Kangoulu claim area and portions of a neighbouring Gaangalu Nation People claim, referencing a prior negative determination (in the matter of Blucher on behalf of the Gaangalu Nation People v State of Queensland (No 4) [2024] FCA 425).
Expert evidence
As part of the application for leave to reopen the trial on the separate questions filed by Mr Huet, he sought to rely on the report of an anthropological expert, Dr RM, whose evidence was previously heard by the court. Dr RM was also previously cross-examined on 15 and 16 September 2022.
The applicant sought to file, and present as evidence, an additional supplementary expert report prepared by Dr RM, dated 26 July 2024 and titled "Short Report in Relation to Society and Boundaries in the Western Kangoulu Native Title Claim".
In considering the supplementary report and the role of Dr RM in the broader proceedings previously, the Court noted that Dr RM's qualifications in anthropology are limited, even though he described himself as an anthropologist and has worked as an anthropological consultant since June 2022. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Southern Queensland (2002) with a double major in anthropology and communications but has not pursued higher or specialised studies in the field. His professional background includes roles as a lecturer at universities (without specifying anthropology as his field), a bus operator, a mail driver and a survey assistant (see at [44]).
Dr RM has contributed to nine anthropological reports, including one for Mr Huet in relation to various native title claims, however, in 2013, Jagot J ruled that his qualifications were insufficient to meet the expert evidence requirements under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), leading to the exclusion of his reports in the Bidjara case (Wyman on behalf of the Bidjara People v State of Queensland # 6 (QUD 245 of 2011, 5 April 2013, unreported)). This ruling was referenced by Logan J in the Djaku:nde claim (Little on behalf of the Djaku:nde People v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 287). There is no evidence that Dr RM has obtained further qualifications since 2013 (see at[45]).
In this proceeding, Dr RM submitted a draft report suggesting that a single Gaangalu group holds native title over both the Western Kangoulu and Gaangalu Nation People claim areas. The court held that this contradicts the basis on which both claims have proceeded—namely, that the Western Kangoulu and Gaangalu Nation People are distinct groups with separate ancestral connections to different claim areas. The court ruled that there are real doubts concerning Dr RM's qualifications to express expert anthropological opinions.[48]
The application by Mr Huet to be joined to the Western Kangoulu people's native title claim was dismissed on a number of reasons (including delay and prejudice to the respondents) as well as the concerns expressed by the Court in relation to the report proposed by Dr RM.
Read the full decision here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.