R v Hartwick (No 4) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. C01021821 of 2002

THE QUEEN

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.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hartwick (No 4) involved the defendant, Hartwick, who was being prosecuted for an alleged crime. The primary dispute centred around the handling of a police interview transcript, specifically whether the editing of the transcript constituted a breach of procedural fairness. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the edits made to the interview transcript were substantial enough to affect the fairness of the trial, and if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence. The court also needed to consider the impact of the edited transcript on the reliability of the evidence and the defendant's right to a fair trial as protected by the Australian Constitution.

The court held that the edits made to the transcript were indeed significant, as they altered the meaning and context of the defendant's responses. The court found that these alterations could potentially mislead the jury and undermine the integrity of the trial process. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under the common law and statutory provisions to exclude the edited transcript from evidence. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that the fairness of a trial must not be compromised by the admission of unreliable or misleading evidence.

In light of the court's decision, the prosecution was unable to rely on the edited interview transcript as evidence against the defendant. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the rigorous standards applied to the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials in Australia.

R v Hartwick (No 4)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established