R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 34) [2016] NSWSC 259

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 34) [2016] NSWSC 259

The applications to discharge the jury were refused because Farley's statement was an isolated, gratuitous and non-responsive two-word assertion made in response to a proper question that did not seek such evidence; the trial was already lengthy with a large body of evidence, and the judge had intervened to prevent further elaboration; there was no sufficient basis to conclude that any prejudice, including to McNamara's good character case or to Rogerson by inference of influence, could not be cured by a clear direction to disregard the statement. Applying the principle that discharge requires necessity to prevent a miscarriage of justice and that juries are assumed to follow directions,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Applications by Each Accused to Discharge the Jury Following a Non Responsive Answer by a Witness During Cross Examination
Outcome
Applications to discharge the jury refused.
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'judicial Directions' 'criminal Jury Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'practice and Procedure'] ['jury Discharge' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'judicial Directions' 'criminal Jury Trial']

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 Trial / Applications by Each Accused to Discharge the Jury Following a Non Responsive Answer by a Witness During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged because a witness gave a gratuitous and non-responsive answer describing McNamara as a "drug dealer".' "Whether any prejudice to McNamara or Rogerson from the witness's answer could be cured by an appropriate direction to the jury." "Whether the jury could be expected to follow and apply a direction to disregard the witness's statement."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to discharge the jury were refused because Farley's statement was an isolated, gratuitous and non-responsive two-word assertion made in response to a proper question that did not seek such evidence; the trial was already lengthy with a large body of evidence, and the judge had intervened to prevent further elaboration; there was no sufficient basis to conclude that any prejudice, including to McNamara's good character case or to Rogerson by inference of influence, could not be cured by a clear direction to disregard the statement. Applying the principle that discharge requires necessity to prevent a miscarriage of justice and that juries are assumed to follow directions,...

Court Disposition

Applications to discharge the jury refused.

Orders

  • ['The applications to discharge the jury are refused.' 'The Court will hear counsel on the terms of the direction to be given to the jury.']