R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 1029

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 1029

The Crown's application was allowed only in part. Representations were admitted where they were contemporaneous statements of the deceased's intention, knowledge or state of mind under s. 66A, or where the circumstances made them sufficiently reliable under s. 65(2)(c). Representations were not admitted where they were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, vague, second hand hearsay, or where the temporal or reliability requirements of s. 65 were not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on Indictment Alleging Murder and Supply of a Prohibited Drug, With an Alternative Count Against Rogerson of Being Accessory After the Fact to Murder / Procedural and Other Rulings on Admissibility of Hearsay Representations of the Deceased
Outcome
Crown application to adduce hearsay representations of the deceased allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'previous Representations of Unavailable Witness' 'contemporaneous Statements of Intention, Knowledge or State of Mind' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'previous Representations of Unavailable Witness' 'contemporaneous Statements of Intention, Knowledge or State of Mind' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']

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 Proceedings on Indictment Alleging Murder and Supply of a Prohibited Drug, With an Alternative Count Against Rogerson of Being Accessory After the Fact to Murder / Procedural and Other Rulings on Admissibility of Hearsay Representations of the Deceased

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether previous representations allegedly made by the deceased, Jamie Gao, were admissible in the accuseds' criminal trial." 'Whether the Crown satisfied the requirements of ss. 65, 66A or 81 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for particular representations.' 'Whether particular representations were irrelevant, second hand hearsay, unreliable, insufficiently proximate in time, or unfairly prejudicial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown's application was allowed only in part. Representations were admitted where they were contemporaneous statements of the deceased's intention, knowledge or state of mind under s. 66A, or where the circumstances made them sufficiently reliable under s. 65(2)(c). Representations were not admitted where they were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, vague, second hand hearsay, or where the temporal or reliability requirements of s. 65 were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Crown application to adduce hearsay representations of the deceased allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • ["Henry Zheng: the deceased's representation that he was going to see a male by the name of Glen McNamara was admitted under s. 66A." "Wayne Cai: the representation that Glen was going to hire the deceased to work with him was admitted under s. 66A; the deceased's representations about wanting to be a gangster and...