R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1067

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1067

The Court was satisfied that the requirements of s. 53(2) were met because the accused would be represented by counsel and the judge and jury would be present; the proposed locations were significant to the Crown case and a view would assist the jury in understanding the evidence; no unfair prejudice, misleading or confusing effect, or undue waste of time was suggested; and the empty state of storage shed 803 was not shown to be a material alteration making the view unhelpful or prejudicial. The inspection was therefore appropriate and was ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings for Murder and Supply of a Prohibited Drug / Crown Notice of Motion for an Inspection/view During the Trial
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['jury View' 'inspection of Locations' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S. 53']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['jury View' 'inspection of Locations' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S. 53']

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 for Murder and Supply of a Prohibited Drug / Crown Notice of Motion for an Inspection/view During the Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an inspection or view of locations relevant to the Crown case should be conducted pursuant to s. 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the proposed view would assist the jury in understanding the evidence and whether any prejudice, confusion, misleading effect, undue waste of time, or material alteration prevented the view.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the requirements of s. 53(2) were met because the accused would be represented by counsel and the judge and jury would be present; the proposed locations were significant to the Crown case and a view would assist the jury in understanding the evidence; no unfair prejudice, misleading or confusing effect, or undue waste of time was suggested; and the empty state of storage shed 803 was not shown to be a material alteration making the view unhelpful or prejudicial. The inspection was therefore appropriate and was ordered.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['During the course of the trial, at a time and date agreed upon by the parties, an inspection be conducted pursuant to s. 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) of those locations set out in Annexure A to the affidavit of Karl Robert Prince affirmed on 31 July 2015.']