R v Rogers (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1217

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rogers (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1217 Hearing dates: 31 July 2018 Date of orders: 31 July 2018 Decision date: 08 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Lonergan J Decision: The reading of the relevant part of the note of the psychologist Dr Shaw is not permitted. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – representation by accused to health care professional – relevance – danger of unfair prejudice – state of mind – whether representation can rationally affect the assessment of a fact in issue Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 55, 137 Cases Cited: R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52 R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317; 125 A Crim R 315 Texts Cited: N Williams et al, The New Law of Evidence (2nd ed, 2009, LexisNexis) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Warren Rogers (Accused) Representation: Counsel: N Williams (Crown) R Pontello (Accused)

Solicitors: NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Peters Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2016/27652

Judgment 1. An issue has arisen regarding the admissibility of an account that the accused gave to a psychologist, Dr Elizabeth Shaw on 25 August 2016. The account outlined the circumstances in which the deceased took an overdose of sleeping tablets on 22 August 2016 and is recorded as follows: W rang to say there had been a bad argument with A; angry @ her non communication, she said something like "no point being here" – he handed her sleeping pills "might as well go them" and rep to his shock she took pills – Immed. called ambulance � hosp. o/n Now home. Wanted to come in early. Spoke to A. Said she was safe + willing to come in. Had heard W's recount + agreed with it. Agreed to come.