R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 44) [2016] NSWSC 451

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 44) [2016] NSWSC 451

The document in its present form had severely limited probative value because the evidence explaining GPRS data was sparse and came from a witness with only very basic knowledge, and at its highest the document showed independent internet usage by McNamara and the deceased rather than communication between them or reliable proof of McNamara's location. That limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to McNamara and by the danger that the document was misleading and confusing, so it should be excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Documentary Evidence / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Tender of GPRS Telecommunications Document
Outcome
The tendered document was excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['documentary Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'telecommunications Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['documentary Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'telecommunications 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Evidence Documentary Evidence / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Tender of GPRS Telecommunications Document

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the GPRS telecommunications document tendered by counsel for Rogerson was relevant and admissible.' 'Whether the document was misleading or confusing because it did not establish communication or association between the deceased and McNamara.' 'Whether any probative value of the document was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to McNamara and by the danger that it was misleading or confusing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The document in its present form had severely limited probative value because the evidence explaining GPRS data was sparse and came from a witness with only very basic knowledge, and at its highest the document showed independent internet usage by McNamara and the deceased rather than communication between them or reliable proof of McNamara's location. That limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to McNamara and by the danger that the document was misleading and confusing, so it should be excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The tendered document was excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['The document sought to be tendered by Mr Thomas is excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']