R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 40) [2016] NSWSC 389

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 40) [2016] NSWSC 389

Whatever limited probative value the evidence of images might have is substantially outweighed by the danger that it could be misleading or confusing due to lack of evidence about how the images came to be on the deceased's devices and their poor quality. Therefore, the evidence should be excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Evidence excluded; application denied at this stage
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'danger of Misleading or Confusing the Jury']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'danger of Misleading or Confusing the Jury']

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 / Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of images found on the deceased's phone and computer should be excluded"]

Ratio Decidendi

Whatever limited probative value the evidence of images might have is substantially outweighed by the danger that it could be misleading or confusing due to lack of evidence about how the images came to be on the deceased's devices and their poor quality. Therefore, the evidence should be excluded under s. 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded; application denied at this stage

Orders

  • ['For the time being the evidence is excluded']