R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1015

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1015

The Crown's proposed tendency evidence did not have significant probative value under s. 97. Broad references in Lam's statement to drug business or drug deals did not establish a tendency to take part in the supply of illegal drugs with Chinese people. The evidence about McNamara's claimed knowledge of police operations was relayed through an interpreter, was not direct evidence of McNamara's actual conduct, and did not specifically record an offer of expertise; it therefore did not establish the second alleged tendency to the required standard.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Procedural Ruling on Crown Tendency Evidence / Pre Trial Ruling After Not Guilty Pleas to Indictment and Amended Indictment
Outcome
Crown application refused.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'significant Probative Value' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 97 and 101' 'drug Supply' 'murder']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'significant Probative Value' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 97 and 101' 'drug Supply' 'murder']

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 Proceeding; Procedural Ruling on Crown Tendency Evidence / Pre Trial Ruling After Not Guilty Pleas to Indictment and Amended Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the evidence identified in the Crown's tendency notice met the test of significant probative value under s. 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether evidence from Lam's statement established a tendency by McNamara to take part in the supply of illegal drugs with Chinese people." "Whether evidence from Lam's statement established a tendency by McNamara to offer expertise from previous experience as an undercover Police officer to teach others how to avoid police apprehension."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown's proposed tendency evidence did not have significant probative value under s. 97. Broad references in Lam's statement to drug business or drug deals did not establish a tendency to take part in the supply of illegal drugs with Chinese people. The evidence about McNamara's claimed knowledge of police operations was relayed through an interpreter, was not direct evidence of McNamara's actual conduct, and did not specifically record an offer of expertise; it therefore did not establish the second alleged tendency to the required standard.

Court Disposition

Crown application refused.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's application to rely upon tendency evidence is refused."]