R v Rogers (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1217

R v Rogers (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1217

Although the accused's account to the psychologist was relevant and had some probative value regarding his state of mind and the nature of the relationship, its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, as the jury could improperly reason that the accused intended the deceased to die on 22 August 2016. Accordingly, the evidence was excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Warren Rogers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Objection upheld; evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Relevance, Unfair Prejudice, Representations to Health Professionals
Evidence Law Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Relevance Unfair Prejudice Representations to Health Professionals

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Warren Rogers

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's account to a psychologist regarding the deceased's overdose is admissible as evidence
  2. 2 Whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Although the accused's account to the psychologist was relevant and had some probative value regarding his state of mind and the nature of the relationship, its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, as the jury could improperly reason that the accused intended the deceased to die on 22 August 2016. Accordingly, the evidence was excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; evidence excluded

Orders

  • The reading of the relevant part of the note of the psychologist Dr Shaw is not permitted.