R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 21) [2016] NSWSC 79

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 21) [2016] NSWSC 79

Because Mr Sha could understand only part of the conversation, any evidence he could give would be incomplete and disjointed, giving rise to the possibility of it being misleading or confusing; therefore, the evidence is not admitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application to admit evidence refused.
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'hearsay' 'crossexamination' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'hearsay' 'crossexamination' 'admissibility of Evidence']

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 / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether witness' evidence of a conversation conducted mostly in an unfamiliar language should be admitted in cross-examination" 'Whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of being misleading or confusing']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Sha could understand only part of the conversation, any evidence he could give would be incomplete and disjointed, giving rise to the possibility of it being misleading or confusing; therefore, the evidence is not admitted.

Court Disposition

Application to admit evidence refused.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Mr Sha as to the relevant conversation is not admitted.']