Rogerson v R; McNamara v R [2021] NSWCCA 160

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rogerson v R; McNamara v R [2021] NSWCCA 160 Hearing dates: 21-25 September 2020 Date of orders: 16 July 2021 Decision date: 16 July 2021 Before: Bell P R A Hulme J Beech-Jones J Decision: Rogerson 1. Extend time to file notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence to 9 March 2020. 2. Grant leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 1, 3 and 5 but refuse leave in respect of Ground 4. 3. Appeal dismissed. 4. Pursuant to s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, on the grounds specified in s 8(1)(e) thereof, order that until 23 July 2021 paragraphs [308]-[413] of this judgment and that part of the headnote referring to them not be published other than to the parties or the NSW Crime Commission. 5. Order 4 is to operate throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. 6. Direct that on or before 21 July 2021 the parties and the NSW Crime Commission file any submissions not exceeding four pages concerning paragraphs [308] to [413] of this judgment. 7. Access to the Court file will only be permitted to a non-party with the leave of a Judge of the Court, and only after the parties and the NSW Crime Commission have had notice of the non-party's application for access and have been afforded an opportunity to be heard with respect to the application. McNamara 1. Extend time to file notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence to 9 August 2019. 2. Grant leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 1 to 5. 3. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 44(3), 43 – cross-examination of one accused by another – prior inconsistent statement – "use" to be made of Crime Commission Information Report – report was a summary of the co-accused's account of events – inconsistency between Information Report and co-accused's account of events at trial – no questions expressly or impliedly referring to existence of report allowed – questions about oral statements made by co-accused to the Commission should have been allowed with leave – rebuttal evidence should have been allowed under s 106 – erroneous ruling under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 192A CRIME – appeals – Criminal Appeals Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1) – third limb – loss of chance of acquittal – second limb – wrong decision of any question of law CRIME – appeals – proviso – error relevant to credibility of co-accused only – credibility of both accused comprehensively rejected by the jury – no significant denial of procedural fairness – Court able to assess proviso – accused's guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt – proviso applied – appeal dismissed CRIME – appeals – unreasonable verdict – circumstantial case – joint criminal enterprise – two accused – Crown unable to prove which accused fired the fatal shots – cut-throat defence – Crown attack on both accused's credibility – lies demonstrating consciousness of guilt – exculpatory explanations frankly absurd and third grade fictional – neither accused a criminal genius CRIME – appeals – fresh evidence – evidence came forward after the Rogerson was sentenced – key witness a friend of the accused – "oh by the way don't tell Rogerson about this" – evidence not credible – no miscarriage of justice EVIDENCE – exclusion – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 135 – evidence that Rogerson admitted having participated in several homicides and other criminal violence – evidence relevant to whether McNamara's conduct committed under duress – limited probative value – highly prejudicial to Rogerson in context of murder trial – evidence correctly excluded CRIME – appeals – appropriate standard of review – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 135(a) – review of trial judge's decision to exclude evidence – s 135 involves an evaluative judgment, not an exercise of judicial discretion – House v The King standard not appropriate – "correctness" standard applied – appellate court to decide for itself whether the evidence should be excluded WORDS AND PHRASES – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 135(a) "evidence unfairly prejudicial to a party" – "a party" includes a co-accused in a joint criminal trial CRIME – appeals – appeal against refusal to discharge jury – inadmissible evidence before jury – evidence would have had minimal effect on jury in the context of the trial – carefully crafted directions given – agreed fact stating the inadmissible evidence was incorrect – trial judge correct to refuse the application SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – life sentence – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 61(1) – "level of culpability in the commission of the offence" – two-stage approach appropriate – not the same two-stage approach previously rejected by the High Court – no inconsistency with instinctive synthesis approach – circumstances surrounding or causally connected to the offence – objective and subjective distinction unhelpful in context of s 61 – life sentence appropriate SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – challenge to factual findings on sentence – sentencing judge found plan to kill deceased was formed well before murder – finding overwhelmingly supported by evidence – no error Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 431B Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Act 1996 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 19A, 21, 21A, 61 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) ss 5(1), 6(1) Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) sch 1 s 668E Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 29(2) Evidence Act 1898 (NSW) s 55 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 3(3) 20, 27, 41(4), 43, 44, 48, 55, 69, 84, 86, 97, 101, 101A, 102, 103, 104, 106, 128, 135, 136, 137, 192A Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) ss 5(2), 8(b), 21(1) Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8 Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404; [1984] HCA 85 Allen v R [2020] NSWCCA 173 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 54 ACSR 326; [2005] NSWCA 152 Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 92; [2012] HCA 14 BC v R [2019] NSWCCA 111 Caine & Goddard v T (1993) 68 A Crim R 233 Castle v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 449; [2016] HCA 46 CC v R; R v CC [2021] NSWCCA 71 Collaroy Services Beach Club Ltd v Haywood [2007] NSWCA 21 Cornwell v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 260; [2007] HCA 12 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22 CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 224 ALR 1; [2006] HCA 1 Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 476; [2017] NSWCCA 78 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Burrows [2017] NSWCCA 105 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v RDT [2018] NSWCCA 293 Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Hills (Ruling No 6) [2010] VSC 486 DR v R [2019] NSWCCA 320 Dean v R [2015] NSWCCA 307 Dean v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 278 Dupas v R (2012) 40 VR 182; [2012] VSCA 328 Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd v Jones [2008] NSWCA 56 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392; [1986] HCA 26 GBF v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 1037; [2020] HCA 40 Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15 Hamide v R (2019) 101 NSWLR 455; [2019] NSWCCA 219 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Hordern v R [2019] NSWCCA 138 IW v R [2019] NSWCCA 311 Jackmain v R (2020) 102 NSWLR 847; [2020] NSWCCA 150 James Hardie Industries NV v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 18 Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7 Knight v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 126; [2006] NSWCCA 292 Lobban v The Queen [1995] 1 WLR 877 Lowery v The Queen [1974] AC 85 Lui Mei-Lin v The Queen [1989] AC 288 MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Munday v Gill (1930) 44 CLR 38; [1930] HCA 20 Munday v R (1984) 14 A Crim R 456 Murdoch v Taylor [1965] AC 574 PMT Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) v Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; [1995] HCA 36 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 R v Ahola (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 703 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40 R v Beattie (1996) 40 NSWLR 155; 89 A Crim R 393 R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466 R v BWM (1997) 91 A Crim R 260 R v Carranceja (1989) 42 A Crim R 402 R v Cook [2014] NSWCCA 52 R v Cornell [2015] NSWCCA 258 R v Darrington and McGauley [1980] VR 353 R v Farhad Qaumi, Mumtaz Qaumi & Jamil Qaumi (Sentence) [2017] NSWSC 774 R v Ford (2009) 201 A Crim R 451; [2009] NSWCCA 306 R v Garforth (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 23 May 1994, unrep) R v Gibb and McKenzie [1983] 2 VR 155 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; [1992] HCA 16 R v Glossop [2001] NSWCCA 165 R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469 R v Harris (2000) 111 A Crim R 415; [2000] NSWSC 285 R v Hartley [2007] 3 NZLR 299; [2007] NZCA 31 R v Henry; R v Gravett; R v Swansson [2008] NSWCCA 248 R v Hyman (1990) 46 A Crim R 217 R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48 R v Lowery and King (No 3) [1972] VR 939 R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; [2004] NSWCCA 19 R v Murch; R v Logan (2014) 119 SASR 427; [2014] SASCFC 61 R v Nielsen (1984) 16 CCC (3d) 39 R v O'Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397 R v Qaumi (No 24) [2016] NSWSC 505 R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 32) [2016] NSWSC 200 R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 33) [2016] NSWSC 247 R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 34) [2016] NSWSC 259 R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 57) [2016] NSWSC 1207 R v Roughan; R v Jones (2007) 179 A Crim R 389; [2007] QCA 443 R v SJRC [2007] NSWCCA 142 R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633 R v Su, Katsuno, Katsuno, Katsuno, Asami & Honda (1997) 1 VR 1 R v Swansson; R v Henry (2007) 69 NSWLR 406; [2007] NSWCCA 67 R v Taylor [2003] NSWCCA 194 R v Valera [2002] NSWCCA 50 R v XY (2013) 84 NSWLR 363; [2013] NSWCCA 121 R v Young [1990] VR 951 R v Yousry (1914) 11 Cr App R 13 R v Zhang (2005) 158 A Crim R 504; [2005] NSWCCA 437 Rahme v R [2001] NSWCCA 414 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35 Riley v R [2011] NSWCCA 238 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34 Sidaros v The Queen (2019) 15 ACTLR 64; [2020] ACTCA 11 State Rail Authority (NSW) v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588; [1999] HCA 3 Taylor v R [2020] NSWCCA 355 The Queen's Case (1820) Brod & Bing 284; 129 ER 976 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Vagg v R [2020] NSWCCA 134 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195; [2006] NSWCCA 60 Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 WO v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2009] NSWCCA 275 WX v R (2020) 102 NSWLR 467; [2020] NSWCCA 142 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4 Texts Cited: Australian Law Reform Commission Report No 26 Australian Law Reform Commission Report No 102 Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill 1995 (NSW) Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill 1996 (NSW) Evidence Bill 1993 (Cth) cl 114 MH McHugh, "Cross‑examination on Documents" (1985) 1 Aust Bar Rev 51 New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 11 October 1995 New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 17 April 1996 R Pattenden, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation (2nd ed, 1990, Oxford University Press) R Weinstein et al, Uniform Evidence Law in Australia (3rd ed, 2020, LexisNexis) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Roger Caleb Rogerson (Applicant) Glen Patrick McNamara (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Stratton SC; M Avenell SC (Rogerson) S Odgers SC; G Wendler (McNamara) E Balodis; K Prince (Crown)