R V. Rogerson And Mcnamara Case Analysis

Intro

The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.

Plea bargaining precludes justice from being achieved, where the consent to less severe sentences are given in favour of time and money. The case of R v Rogerson and McNamara, demonstrates the advantages of hiring highly trained legal personnel, which inevitably contributed to their lesser sentence. Thus, making it more difficult for offenders to be convicted.

This is demonstrated in the case of R v Rogerson and McNamara where two former police officers, Roger Rogerson and Glen McNamara were convicted to life imprisonment based on the murder of Sydney student, Jamie Gao in 2014. Due to the nature of the law, the offenders presumption of innocence was upheld until their conviction in September 2016. Consequently, it created a tedious trial and sentencing process, where extortionate amounts of money were attributed to aspects, such as a judge and jury fees. Additionally, time is also a negative element in this instance where cases under the presumption of innocence, involve extensive hours of litigation and hence an increase in taxpayers