R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 22)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 22) [2016] NSWSC 80
Hearing dates: 16 February 2016
Date of orders: 16 February 2016
Decision date: 16 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [3]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where Crown sought extension of orders to include additional location on a view – No opposition by parties – Orders granted – No point of principle
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Rogerson, R v McNamara (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1067
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Crown
Roger Caleb Rogerson - Accused
Glen Patrick McNamara – Accused
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Maxwell QC - Crown
Mr G Thomas – Accused Rogerson
Ms K Shead – Accused McNamara
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Katsoolis and Co – Accused Rogerson
Kings Law Group – Accused McNamara

File Number(s): 2014/157408; 2014/156921
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

On 6 August 2015 I delivered judgment in relation to an application that a view be undertaken of certain areas relevant to the trial, pursuant to the provisions of s. 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (“the Act”): see R v Rogerson, R v McNamara (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1067.
It is proposed that the view be undertaken on Thursday of this week. This morning the Crown filed a notice of motion seeking that the order that I previously made be extended to include an additional location, namely, the area at the corner of Arab Road and Stuart Street at Padstow for the purposes of Detective Sergeant Phillips pointing out, amongst other things, the location nominated by the witness Hubert Sha on exhibit M. No issue has been taken on behalf of either accused in relation to the order sought by the Crown. In light of the evidence which has been given it seems to me entirely appropriate that a view be undertaken of that area, in addition to those which are the subject of my earlier judgment.
Accordingly for those reasons, I order that the view to be undertaken on Thursday 18 February 2016 include, in addition to those areas nominated in my previous judgment, the area nominated as the corner of Arab Road and Stuart Street, Padstow.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of R v Rogerson; R v McNamara, the High Court of Australia was called upon to consider an application by the Crown to extend evidence-gathering orders to include an additional location. This application followed a series of hearings in which the prosecution sought to secure evidence from specified locations in relation to the ongoing criminal proceedings against the respondents, Rogerson and McNamara. The respondents did not oppose the Crown's application, leading the Court to consider whether the extension of the orders was appropriate in the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Crown's application for the extension of evidence-gathering orders should be granted, given that there was no opposition from either party. The Court needed to determine if there was any point of principle that would prevent it from approving the extension, despite the lack of opposition. The Court also needed to ensure that the proposed extension did not infringe upon any rights of the respondents in a manner that would be unjust or unfair.

In delivering its judgment, the Court acknowledged that the Crown's application for the extension of evidence-gathering orders was unopposed by the parties. The Court considered that there was no point of principle that would prevent it from granting the extension. It was satisfied that the additional location was relevant to the ongoing criminal proceedings and that the extension would not unfairly prejudice the respondents. As a result, the Court granted the Crown's application. The Court emphasised that while the absence of opposition was significant, the primary concern was ensuring that the exercise of its powers was appropriate and just in the circumstances.

The final orders of the Court were that the Crown's application to extend the evidence-gathering orders to include the additional location was approved. The Court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that its processes are fair and just, even in cases where there is no opposition from the parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 22) [2016] NSWSC 80
Hearing dates:	16 February 2016
Date of orders:	16 February 2016
Decision date:	16 February 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Bellew J
Decision:	See [3]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where Crown sought extension of orders to include additional location on a view – No opposition by parties – Orders granted – No point of principle
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Rogerson, R v McNamara (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1067
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina – Crown Roger Caleb Rogerson - Accused Glen Patrick McNamara – Accused
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C Maxwell QC - Crown Mr G Thomas – Accused Rogerson Ms K Shead – Accused McNamara Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Katsoolis and Co – Accused Rogerson Kings Law Group – Accused McNamara
File Number(s):	2014/157408; 2014/156921
Publication restriction:	Nil