R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 38) [2016] NSWSC 329

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 38) [2016] NSWSC 329

The probative value of the evidence was low due to its vagueness, potential inconsistency within the statement, and its remoteness in time. The probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Rogerson and by the risk that the jury would be misled or confused. The evidence is excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Evidence excluded
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'prejudice Versus Probative Value' 'joint Trial' 'duress Defence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'prejudice Versus Probative Value' 'joint Trial' 'duress Defence']

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 / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of statement by one accused that another accused was 'dangerous' should be admitted" 'Whether probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice, misleading or confusing the jury']

Ratio Decidendi

The probative value of the evidence was low due to its vagueness, potential inconsistency within the statement, and its remoteness in time. The probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Rogerson and by the risk that the jury would be misled or confused. The evidence is excluded.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded

Orders

  • ["The evidence sought to be elicited from Mr Battisti as to McNamara's alleged statements regarding Rogerson is excluded"]