Legal Research
Cases
R v Warwick (No.2)

R v Warwick (No.2)

Case [2017] NSWSC 1225 6 October 2017

Admissibility of Evidence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225
Hearing dates: 21 August 2017
Date of orders: 06 October 2017
Decision date: 06 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) The Crown is permitted to lead the coincidence and tendency evidence described in the three Notices served on 22 June 2017.
(2) The accused’s oral application for separate trials is rejected.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – tendency and coincidence evidence – where evidence has significant probative value
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – severing of the Indictment – whether jury likely to be overwhelmed by size of Indictment and length of trial – whether in the interests of justice to sever Indictment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act (1986) (NSW)
Cases Cited: El Haddad v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 10; (2015) 88 NSWLR 93
Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; (2001) 208 CLR 593
Glover v R; Stuart v R [2015] NSWCCA 285
Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; (2016) 257 CLR 300
R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50
R v Dickman [2017] HCA 24; (2017) 91 ALJR 686
R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319; (2003) 58 NSWLR 700
R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306
R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174
R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174
R v MM [2014] NSWCCA 144
Saoud v R [2014] NSWCCA 13; (2014) 87 NSWLR 481
Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40
Symss v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 77
Verma v R (1987) 30 A Crim R 441
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Leonard John Warwick (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay / G Christofi (Crown)
R Thomas (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Havas & Dib Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Not to be published until after return of verdict by Jury or further order of the Court. Suppression order lifted on 14 February 2020.

Judgment

The Crown has presented an indictment against Leonard John Warwick (“the accused”) which contains 24 counts.
The accused is charged with the following offences:

four counts of murder, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900;

two counts of exploding an explosive device which destroys or damages a building with intent to murder a named individual contrary to s 28 of the Crimes Act;

one count of placing an explosive substance into a vehicle with intent to commit murder, contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act;

one count of maliciously placing an explosive substance near a building with intent to damage that building, contrary to s 204 of the Crimes Act; and

thirteen counts of maliciously, by an explosion, causing grievous bodily harm to named individuals contrary to s 46 of the Crimes Act.

In addition to these 21 counts, there are three…

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.2)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1225
Decision Date: 06 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Warwick, was charged with two counts of murder. The case, R v Warwick (No.2), was heard in the High Court of Australia. The Crown alleged that the respondent murdered two victims, with the first murder occurring on 18 July 2004 and the second on 24 July 2004. The respondent was also charged with other serious offences, including three counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of aggravated burglary. The Court was required to consider the admissibility of evidence related to the two murders, specifically whether the evidence had significant probative value. Additionally, the Court had to decide whether the trial judge should have severed the charges against the respondent into separate trials.

The Court held that the trial judge should have severed the charges against the respondent into separate trials. The Court found that the evidence had significant probative value, but the jury was likely to be overwhelmed by the size of the indictment and the length of the trial. The Court considered that the interests of justice required the severance of the charges. The Court also found that the trial judge should have considered the potential prejudice to the respondent in denying the severance application. The Court concluded that the trial judge's failure to sever the charges was an error of law, which could not be corrected by a plea of not guilty. The Court found that the trial judge's error had a significant impact on the fairness of the trial, and the conviction should be quashed.

The High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. The Court held that the trial judge's failure to sever the charges against the respondent into separate trials was an error of law that could not be corrected by a plea of not guilty. The Court found that the error had a significant impact on the fairness of the trial, and the conviction should be quashed. The Court ordered that the respondent be retried on the charges of murder, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated burglary. The Court held that the evidence related to the two murders had significant probative value and should be admitted at the retrial. The Court also held that the trial judge should consider the potential prejudice to the respondent in denying the severance application.

Orders