R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 25) [2016] NSWSC 110

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 25) [2016] NSWSC 110

The question was disallowed as a leading question because the witness appeared prone to agree with propositions put in a leading form, there was some suggestion of possible sympathy to Rogerson, and the relevant facts would be better ascertained through a non-leading form, as required by s. 42 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Roger Caleb Rogerson; Accused: Glen Patrick McNamara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Objection upheld; leading question disallowed.
Legal Topics
Leading Questions, Cross Examination, Sympathetic Witness
Criminal Law Evidence Leading Questions Cross Examination Sympathetic Witness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Roger Caleb Rogerson

Accused

Glen Patrick McNamara

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a leading question should be permitted in cross-examination under s. 42 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) where the witness may be sympathetic to the cross-examiner

Ratio Decidendi

The question was disallowed as a leading question because the witness appeared prone to agree with propositions put in a leading form, there was some suggestion of possible sympathy to Rogerson, and the relevant facts would be better ascertained through a non-leading form, as required by s. 42 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; leading question disallowed.

Orders

  • The question in leading form is disallowed; counsel for Rogerson may pursue the issue by other questions.