R v Rogers (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 686

R v Rogers (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 686

The disputed representations and opinion evidence were inadmissible because the Crown did not establish that the deceased's representations were made when or shortly after the asserted facts or in circumstances making fabrication unlikely or reliability highly probable, and unsupported value judgments describing the accused as dominating, domineering or controlling had slight or negligible probative value outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding Murder Charge / Procedural and Other Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
The representations and evidence in issue were excluded.
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'hearsay Rule' 'exception to Hearsay Rule Where Maker Unavailable' 'unfair Prejudice' 'relevance' 'representations by Deceased']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'hearsay Rule' 'exception to Hearsay Rule Where Maker Unavailable' 'unfair Prejudice' 'relevance' 'representations by Deceased']

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 Proceeding Murder Charge / Procedural and Other Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations allegedly made by the deceased to witnesses were admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule in s 65(2)(b) or s 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether opinions or descriptions of the accused as dominating, domineering or controlling had sufficient probative value or should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether particular parts of statements of Christine McCormack, Ronald Walker, Julie Bertoldo, Andrew William Harris and Jeff Langham were relevant and admissible.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed representations and opinion evidence were inadmissible because the Crown did not establish that the deceased's representations were made when or shortly after the asserted facts or in circumstances making fabrication unlikely or reliability highly probable, and unsupported value judgments describing the accused as dominating, domineering or controlling had slight or negligible probative value outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Court Disposition

The representations and evidence in issue were excluded.

Orders

  • ["The evidence in paragraph 16 of Christine McCormack's statement was excluded." "The first two sentences of paragraph 17 of Christine McCormack's statement were excluded." "The disputed sentence in paragraph 6 of Christine McCormack's statement and the financial-control representation in that paragraph were...