R v Warwick (No.11) - [2018] NSWSC 521

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.11) [2018] NSWSC 521
Hearing dates: 23 April 2018
Date of orders: 23 April 2018
Decision date: 30 April 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Order that Orders 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion filed on 11 April 2018 be dismissed.
(2) Stand over the balance of the Motion to 10am on 30 April 2018.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – interlocutory orders –motion for reformulation of Crown electronic brief in specified form – where order previously made requiring Crown to prepare an electronic brief –consideration of mandatory pre-trial disclosure obligations – Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ss 141(1)(a) and 142 – motion dismissed in part
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Warwick (No.6) [2018] NSWSC 234
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Leonard John Warwick (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay / G Christofi (Crown)
A R Conolly / E Ramsay (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Not to be published until further order of the Court. Non publication order lifted on 14 February 2020.

Judgment

In R vWarwick (No.6) [2018] NSWSC 234, a judgment delivered on 1 March 2018, I made orders requiring the Crown to serve on the Accused two sets of:

“an electronic Court book setting out in the order of the document headed ‘Order of witnesses for trial’, and by reference to each named witness, the statements and other records which are to be adduced in evidence at the trial.”

That order was made in substance to address the gravamen of the Accused's submissions that the nature of the piecemeal service of the Police Brief and the Crown Brief, particularly exacerbated by service of documents in the period between October 2017 and March 2018, made it very hard for the Accused to fully understand the evidence which the Crown proposed to adduce at the trial by reference to particular witnesses and events.
As well, as I noted in R v Warwick (No.6), there could be considerable difficulties with respect to the storage in Court of multiple copies of a paper version of the Crown Brief.
I concluded that it would be in the interests of justice that there be available for the purposes of the trial an electronic database which captured the document which had been provided in paper form entitled “Order of Witnesses for Trial”, together with each of the statements and other documents to which those witnesses would refer in the order in which that list presented.
The Crown complied with that order and has provided to the Court, and to the Accused, an electronic database accessible through a software program entitled “Adobe Acrobat Pro DC”. It will be convenient to call this the “Crown E-Brief”.

Notice of Motion

On 11 April 2018, the Accused filed a Notice of Motion in Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Warwick (No.11)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.11) [2018] NSWSC 521
Case: [2018] NSWSC 521
Decision Date: 30 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.11) involved a defendant, Warwick, who sought an interlocutory order for the reformulation of the Crown's electronic brief in a specified form. This request was made in the context of pre-trial disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The matter was heard in a relevant court, which is not specified in the text. The core issue before the court was whether the defendant's request for a specific form of electronic brief was appropriate and necessary under the statutory framework governing pre-trial disclosure.

The court addressed the legal issues by examining the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, specifically sections 141(1)(a) and 142, which outline the mandatory pre-trial disclosure obligations. The court considered the purpose of these obligations, which is to ensure a fair trial by providing the defence with sufficient information to adequately prepare their case. The court also assessed the specific form of electronic brief requested by the defendant against these statutory obligations. Ultimately, the court determined that while the request for a specific form of electronic brief was not inherently inappropriate, it was not strictly necessary for the purposes of the statutory disclosure requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the motion in part, declining to order the Crown to prepare the electronic brief in the specified form requested by the defendant.

This decision highlights the importance of balancing the statutory obligations of pre-trial disclosure with the practicalities of case preparation. The court's ruling underscores that while the form of disclosure should facilitate a fair trial, it is ultimately the content and sufficiency of the information provided that is paramount. The outcome of this case may serve as a guideline for future interlocutory motions concerning the form of electronic briefs in criminal proceedings.

Orders