R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 54) [2016] NSWSC 654

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 54) [2016] NSWSC 654

None of the facts identified as indispensable are actually indispensable for the purposes of the Crown case; even removing them, the Crown case remains sufficient. The jury should be directed to consider the circumstantial evidence as 'strands in a cable', not as links in a chain requiring proof of intermediate facts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling Prior to Final Address
Outcome
Jury will receive a 'strands in the cable' circumstantial evidence direction, not a 'links in the chain' direction.
Legal Topics
['evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law'] ['evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' '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 / Procedural Ruling Prior to Final Address

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the case required proof of essential intermediate facts beyond reasonable doubt' "Whether jury should receive a 'links in the chain' direction for circumstantial evidence"]

Ratio Decidendi

None of the facts identified as indispensable are actually indispensable for the purposes of the Crown case; even removing them, the Crown case remains sufficient. The jury should be directed to consider the circumstantial evidence as 'strands in a cable', not as links in a chain requiring proof of intermediate facts.

Court Disposition

Jury will receive a 'strands in the cable' circumstantial evidence direction, not a 'links in the chain' direction.

Orders

  • ["Jury to be directed on circumstantial evidence as 'strands in a cable'."]