R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 28)

Case

[2016] NSWSC 160

01 March 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 28) [2016] NSWSC 160 [2016] NSWSC 160 01 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rogerson and R v McNamara, the dispute centred on the admissibility of certain cross-examination evidence in a criminal trial before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case involved two defendants, Rogerson and McNamara, who were facing criminal charges. During the trial, issues arose regarding the form of questions posed by counsel during cross-examination and the admissibility of evidence pertaining to a witness's criminal history.

The court was required to decide several key legal issues. First, whether a question posed by counsel during cross-examination that sought to elicit a witness's belief was properly objected to and correctly rejected by the court. Second, whether the court should have discharged the jury upon an objection to a cross-examination question, given the potential prejudice caused by the question. Third, whether the criminal history of a witness, particularly if over 20 years old, could be admissible to challenge the witness's credibility.

The court held that the question posed by counsel seeking to elicit a witness's belief during cross-examination was properly objected to and rejected. The court further ruled that any potential prejudice caused by the objected-to question could be mitigated through an appropriate direction to the jury. Consequently, the application to discharge the jury was dismissed. Additionally, the court found that the witness's criminal history, being more than 20 years old, was not admissible for the purpose of challenging the witness's credibility. Therefore, the application to admit the criminal history evidence was rejected. The Crown's application to cross-examine the unfavourable witness was granted.

The final orders of the court were that the objected-to cross-examination question was to be excluded, any potential prejudice addressed by direction to the jury, and the witness's criminal history not to be admitted for assessing credibility. The Crown was granted leave to cross-examine the unfavourable witness.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Admissibility of Evidence

  • Cross-examination

  • Prejudice

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
R v BI (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 356

Cases Citing This Decision

4

R v BI (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 356
Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

1

R v El-Azzi [2004] NSWCCA 455
R v El-Azzi [2004] NSWCCA 455