R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 48) [2016] NSWSC 479

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 48) [2016] NSWSC 479

MFI 173 is admissible because its probative value regarding issues of duress, control, and post offence conduct is significant and not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice or confusion; MFI 174 is excluded due to low probative value, largely because the procedure it relates to never took place, and the significant risk of misleading or confusing the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
MFI 173 admitted; MFI 174 excluded
Legal Topics
['documentary Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion' 'duress' 'post Offence Conduct']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['documentary Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion' 'duress' 'post Offence Conduct']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents authored by or between the accused are admissible as evidence' 'Probative value versus potential unfair prejudice or confusion under evidentiary principles']

Ratio Decidendi

MFI 173 is admissible because its probative value regarding issues of duress, control, and post offence conduct is significant and not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice or confusion; MFI 174 is excluded due to low probative value, largely because the procedure it relates to never took place, and the significant risk of misleading or confusing the jury.

Court Disposition

MFI 173 admitted; MFI 174 excluded

Orders

  • ['MFI 173 admitted into evidence' 'MFI 174 rejected']