R v Hartwick (No 4)
[2002] VSC 481
•8 November 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. C01021821 of 2002
| THE QUEEN |
| V |
| JOHN DOUGLAS HARTWICK, LISA JANE HARTWICK AND CELIA KATHLEEN CLAYTON |
Ruling No 4
JUDGE: | Smith J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 October 2002 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 8 November 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Hartwick & Ors (No 4) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 481 | |
---
Crime Practice and Procedure – Record of interview – Editing transcript.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For John Douglas Hartwick | Mr J. Desmond | McNamaras |
| For Lisa Jane Hartwick | Mr S. Langslow | Stary Myall |
| For Celia Kathleen Clayton | Mr L. Hartnett | Patrick Dwyer |
| For DPP | Mr G. Horgan S.C. with Mr D. Hallowes | Kay Robertson Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
Earlier in this trial I indicated a tentative view that the edited record of interview of John Hartwick should be renumbered and the gaps left by the material I had ruled to be irrelevant should be removed. I invited counsel to consider that view and advise whether they wished to make further submissions.
Counsel for the Crown has submitted that the gaps and numbering should remain to ensure that the transcript was accurate and not misleading. In response counsel for John Hartwick submitted that to leave the material in its present form would mislead. In particular it was put that the jury would identify the number of questions and answers that had been removed and there was the risk of speculation attaching to that. Counsel for John Hartwick submitted that the transcript was after all an aidé-memoire, the video tape being the primary evidence.
It seems to me that there are grave dangers in allowing the jury to have a transcript which contains large blank sections. The jury can be told that they were excluded because they weren't relevant and be directed not to speculate on what they were. Nonetheless they will be left with the impression that the police saw fit to ask a large number of questions on matters apparently not relevant to the issues in the trial but were relevant to other matters. As counsel for Mr Hartwick has pointed out, the transcript is not evidence but is an aidé-memoire and in those circumstances the preferable course it seems to me is to require that the transcript be renumbered to reflect the edited video tape and that the gaps be removed.
---
0
0
0