R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 37) [2016] NSWSC 304
Parts of the produced documents that disclose protected confidences are to be excluded from evidence pursuant to s. 126B, as the likely harm to the applicant outweighs the limited probative value and importance of the evidence.
- Parties
- Crown: Regina; Accused: Roger Caleb Rogerson; Accused: Glen Patrick McNamara; Applicant (protected Confider): Paul Kenny
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Exclusion of Evidence Under S 126 B Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
- Outcome
- Application granted in part
- Legal Topics
- Protected Confidence, Exclusion of Evidence, Judicial Discretion, Medical Records
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Crown
Roger Caleb Rogerson
Accused
Glen Patrick McNamara
Accused
Paul Kenny
Applicant (protected Confider)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Exclusion of Evidence Under S 126 B Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether evidence of protected confidences in medical documents should be excluded under s. 126B of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
- 2 Correct approach to applications for exclusion of evidence where only part of a document reveals protected confidence
Ratio Decidendi
Parts of the produced documents that disclose protected confidences are to be excluded from evidence pursuant to s. 126B, as the likely harm to the applicant outweighs the limited probative value and importance of the evidence.
Court Disposition
Application granted in part
Orders
- Redacted portions of Dr Hampshire's material disclosing protected confidences to be excluded pursuant to s. 126B Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
- Redacted material to be provided to Mr Kenny's legal representatives
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment