R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 45) [2016] NSWSC 452

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 45) [2016] NSWSC 452

The evidence was relevant to McNamara's asserted duress, but its probative value was limited because the February 2014 conversation was imprecisely dated, occurred months before the events of 20 May 2014, and added little to the real basis of the duress case, namely the alleged shooting and immediate threats. That limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury might unfairly treat the evidence as showing that Rogerson was complicit in other murders or attempted murders, a danger that could not be cured by directions. The February 2014 conversation and the reference to Mr Drury in the storage unit were therefore excluded under s. 135(a), while the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law – Evidence Ruling / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial on Objection to Evidence
Outcome
Evidence excluded in part and admitted in part.
Legal Topics
['duress' 'relevance' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'threat Evidence' 'suppression and Non Publication']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['duress' 'relevance' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'threat Evidence' 'suppression and Non Publication']

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 Ruling / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial on Objection to Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of alleged statements by Rogerson referring to Mr Drury and to previous murders or attempted murders was relevant to McNamara's case on duress." 'Whether the probative value of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger that it might be unfairly prejudicial to Rogerson under s. 135(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether any danger of unfair prejudice could be adequately addressed by a direction to the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was relevant to McNamara's asserted duress, but its probative value was limited because the February 2014 conversation was imprecisely dated, occurred months before the events of 20 May 2014, and added little to the real basis of the duress case, namely the alleged shooting and immediate threats. That limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury might unfairly treat the evidence as showing that Rogerson was complicit in other murders or attempted murders, a danger that could not be cured by directions. The February 2014 conversation and the reference to Mr Drury in the storage unit were therefore excluded under s. 135(a), while the...

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded in part and admitted in part.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the conversation of February 2014 is excluded.' 'The reference to Mr Drury said to have been made by Rogerson in the storage unit is excluded.' 'The remaining portions of the evidence outlined by Mr Wendler commencing at T3044 L8 are admitted, including evidence that Rogerson pointed a gun at...