R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 51) [2016] NSWSC 626

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 51) [2016] NSWSC 626

The Crown was permitted to adduce the evidence in reply because it was highly probative, relevant to the assessment of the accused's credibility, and neither s. 135 nor s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required or justified its exclusion.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Roger Caleb Rogerson; Accused: Glen Patrick McNamara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Crown Reply Evidence at Trial
Outcome
Crown permitted to adduce the evidence in reply
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Crown Case in Reply, Assessment of Witness Credibility, Exclusion of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Crown Case in Reply Assessment of Witness Credibility Exclusion of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Roger Caleb Rogerson

Accused

Glen Patrick McNamara

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Crown Reply Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown should be permitted to lead evidence in reply contradicting the accused's asserted facts
  2. 2 Whether such evidence should be excluded under s. 135 or s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown was permitted to adduce the evidence in reply because it was highly probative, relevant to the assessment of the accused's credibility, and neither s. 135 nor s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required or justified its exclusion.

Court Disposition

Crown permitted to adduce the evidence in reply

Orders

  • The Crown may adduce the evidence of Kim Ross concerning vehicle BV67PX not visiting the relevant tips between 1 April 2014 and 1 June 2014.