R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 965

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 965

The Court found the evidence McNamara sought to adduce was relevant only to Rogerson's credibility, not to a fact in issue, so it could not be admitted as tendency evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). As to separate trials and the separation of counts, given the strong links between the alleged acts, the allegations of joint enterprise, the admissibility of most evidence against both accused, and the weight of authority favouring joint trials where joint criminality is alleged, the applications for separate trials and for severance of counts were refused.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina (The Crown); Accused: Roger Caleb Rogerson; Accused: Glen Patrick McNamara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application Ruling
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Separate Trials, Drug Offences, Murder
Criminal Law Evidence Practice and Procedure Tendency Evidence Joint Criminal Enterprise Separate Trials Drug Offences 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 4 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (The Crown)

Prosecutor

Roger Caleb Rogerson

Accused

Glen Patrick McNamara

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether McNamara may adduce tendency evidence against Rogerson under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether separate trials should be ordered for the co-accused Rogerson and McNamara
  3. 3 Whether counts of murder and drug supply against Rogerson should be tried separately

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the evidence McNamara sought to adduce was relevant only to Rogerson's credibility, not to a fact in issue, so it could not be admitted as tendency evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). As to separate trials and the separation of counts, given the strong links between the alleged acts, the allegations of joint enterprise, the admissibility of most evidence against both accused, and the weight of authority favouring joint trials where joint criminality is alleged, the applications for separate trials and for severance of counts were refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • McNamara's application to adduce tendency evidence refused.
  • Application by Rogerson for separate trial refused.