R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 33) [2016] NSWSC 247

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 33) [2016] NSWSC 247

The evidence was admitted because the statement attributed to Rogerson was clear and unequivocal, had substantial probative value at least as evidence going to credit, was capable of supporting a conclusion that Rogerson denied involvement in the deceased's disappearance, and its probative value was not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Voir Dire Concerning Admissibility of Evidence of a Statement Made by an Accused
Outcome
Evidence admitted; application to exclude under s. 137 rejected.
Legal Topics
["admissibility of Accused's Statement" 'evidence of Alleged Lie' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'credit Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'section 137 Exclusion']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ["admissibility of Accused's Statement" 'evidence of Alleged Lie' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'credit Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'section 137 Exclusion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Voir Dire Concerning Admissibility of Evidence of a Statement Made by an Accused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence that Rogerson said "I don\'t know anything about it" should be admitted as evidence of a lie or as evidence going to credit.' 'Whether the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Rogerson under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was admitted because the statement attributed to Rogerson was clear and unequivocal, had substantial probative value at least as evidence going to credit, was capable of supporting a conclusion that Rogerson denied involvement in the deceased's disappearance, and its probative value was not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted; application to exclude under s. 137 rejected.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Rogerson\'s statement to Mr Farley, "I don\'t know anything about it", is admitted.']