R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 50) [2016] NSWSC 599

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 50) [2016] NSWSC 599

The proposed cross-examination had marginal probative value at best, particularly on the alleged fabrication of a defence, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the clear danger of unfair prejudice to Rogerson arising from the nature of the gift and its reference to persons allegedly shot and killed by him. There was a real risk that the jury might misuse the evidence by speculating about circumstances irrelevant to the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Proposed Cross Examination
Outcome
Proposed cross-examination not permitted.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135']

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 Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Proposed Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether cross-examination of Rogerson about giving McNamara a pen and matching letter opener bearing the names of three persons allegedly shot and killed by Rogerson should be permitted.' 'Whether the probative value of the proposed evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger that it might be unfairly prejudicial to Rogerson.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-examination had marginal probative value at best, particularly on the alleged fabrication of a defence, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the clear danger of unfair prejudice to Rogerson arising from the nature of the gift and its reference to persons allegedly shot and killed by him. There was a real risk that the jury might misuse the evidence by speculating about circumstances irrelevant to the trial.

Court Disposition

Proposed cross-examination not permitted.

Orders

  • ['The proposed cross-examination will not be permitted.']