R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 20) [2016] NSWSC 75
The court refused permission to cross-examine the witness about previous drug possession convictions, holding that the evidence could not substantially affect the witness’s credibility as to whether he was truthful about drug use prior to giving evidence. The mere fact of recent drug possession for personal use did not, of itself, support a conclusion that his denials of drug use were false, nor was there evidence his demeanour was unusual.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
- Outcome
- Application to cross-examine refused
- Legal Topics
- ['cross Examination as to Credibility' 'drug Possession' 'credibility of Witnesses']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether cross-examination of the witness about previous drug possession convictions is permitted as to credibility under s 103 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused permission to cross-examine the witness about previous drug possession convictions, holding that the evidence could not substantially affect the witness’s credibility as to whether he was truthful about drug use prior to giving evidence. The mere fact of recent drug possession for personal use did not, of itself, support a conclusion that his denials of drug use were false, nor was there evidence his demeanour was unusual.
Court Disposition
Application to cross-examine refused
Orders
- ['Cross-examination of Hubert Sha about prior drug possession convictions not permitted']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment