R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 36) [2016] NSWSC 302

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 36) [2016] NSWSC 302

The challenged evidence was relevant but its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the opinion about street-deal values was based on data that varied widely and there was no evidence that either accused was going to supply methylamphetamine by street deals or possessed drug paraphernalia consistent with that intention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding Involving Charges of Murder and Supplying a Large Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Evidence excluded in part
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'drug Valuation Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['expert Evidence' 'drug Valuation Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']

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 Involving Charges of Murder and Supplying a Large Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether expert evidence about the value of methylamphetamine if sold in street deals should be admitted where there was no evidence that either accused intended to sell the drug in street deals.' 'Whether the probative value of the challenged evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged evidence was relevant but its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the opinion about street-deal values was based on data that varied widely and there was no evidence that either accused was going to supply methylamphetamine by street deals or possessed drug paraphernalia consistent with that intention.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded in part

Orders

  • ["The expert evidence in paragraphs 37 to 40 of Detective Sergeant Scholtes' statement was excluded."]