R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 24) [2016] NSWSC 105

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 24) [2016] NSWSC 105

Leave to allow Mr McLannen to refresh his memory from his statement is refused because, given the lapse of 12 months between the event and the making of the statement, the evidence does not establish that the events were 'fresh in his memory' at the relevant time. The evidence also does not go to a core issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Leave to Allow Witness to Revive Memory in Court
Outcome
Application for leave refused
Legal Topics
['revival of Memory' 'good Character Evidence' 'fresh in the Memory' 'procedural Ruling']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['revival of Memory' 'good Character Evidence' 'fresh in the Memory' 'procedural Ruling']

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 / Application for Leave to Allow Witness to Revive Memory in Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for a witness to refresh memory from a statement under s 32 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' "Whether the events were 'fresh in the memory' when the witness made the statement"]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to allow Mr McLannen to refresh his memory from his statement is refused because, given the lapse of 12 months between the event and the making of the statement, the evidence does not establish that the events were 'fresh in his memory' at the relevant time. The evidence also does not go to a core issue.

Court Disposition

Application for leave refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to allow Mr McLannen to refresh his memory from his statement is refused']