R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 8) [2015] NSWSC 1036

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 8) [2015] NSWSC 1036

Comments made by defence counsel exceeded the permissible scope of an opening address under s. 159(2) of the Act, included prejudicial assertions regarding a co-accused, and referenced potential evidence not yet before the jury. This conduct caused such prejudice to the co-accused that a fair trial was not possible, necessitating discharge of the jury.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Roger Caleb Rogerson; Accused: Glen Patrick McNamara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Jury Empanelment/opening Addresses
Outcome
Jury discharged
Legal Topics
Jury Discharge, Opening Address, Fair Trial, Prejudice, Duress
Criminal Law Jury Discharge Opening Address Fair Trial Prejudice Duress

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Roger Caleb Rogerson

Accused

Glen Patrick McNamara

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Jury Empanelment/opening Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel for an accused exceeded the permissible limits of an opening address, thereby causing prejudice to a co-accused
  2. 2 Whether comments made in opening address justified discharging the jury

Ratio Decidendi

Comments made by defence counsel exceeded the permissible scope of an opening address under s. 159(2) of the Act, included prejudicial assertions regarding a co-accused, and referenced potential evidence not yet before the jury. This conduct caused such prejudice to the co-accused that a fair trial was not possible, necessitating discharge of the jury.

Court Disposition

Jury discharged

Orders

  • The jury empanelled for the trial is discharged.