R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 19) [2016] NSWSC 74

The Crown failed to positively identify the persons who made the representations; therefore, they cannot be considered unavailable for the purposes of s. 65, and the evidence must be rejected.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 15 February 2016
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome: Evidence rejected
Legal Topics: ['admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'witness Availability' 'probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice']

['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'witness Availability' 'probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether witnesses (the two Asian males) were 'not available' to give evidence for purposes of s. 65 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)" 'Whether the evidence of representations made in a conversation should be excluded due to probative value being outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice under s. 137']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to positively identify the persons who made the representations; therefore, they cannot be considered unavailable for the purposes of s. 65, and the evidence must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Evidence rejected

Orders

['The evidence of previous representations said to have been made by the two Asian males to Mr Sha is rejected.']