R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 17) [2016] NSWSC 38

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 17) [2016] NSWSC 38

A direction to the jury will be given that the evidence of Lam may be unreliable due to the possibility of benefit derived from assisting police, even though the circumstances do not fall within the explicit categories of s 165(1), as these circumstances raise the possibility of unreliability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Application for Jury Direction Regarding Reliability of Evidence
Outcome
Application granted for direction; direction to jury ordered
Legal Topics
['evidence' 'unreliable Witness' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law'] ['evidence' 'unreliable Witness' 'jury Directions']

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 / Ruling on Application for Jury Direction Regarding Reliability of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a direction should be given to the jury under s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) regarding potential unreliability of witness evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

A direction to the jury will be given that the evidence of Lam may be unreliable due to the possibility of benefit derived from assisting police, even though the circumstances do not fall within the explicit categories of s 165(1), as these circumstances raise the possibility of unreliability.

Court Disposition

Application granted for direction; direction to jury ordered

Orders

  • ['Direction to be given to the jury that the evidence of Chun Lok Lam may be unreliable due to the circumstances in which he approached police and the possible benefit in his mind.']