R v Warwick (No.20) - [2018] NSWSC 656

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.20) [2018] NSWSC 656
Hearing dates: 11 May 2018
Date of orders: 11 May 2018
Decision date: 11 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)   Adjourn the hearing of the trial from 14 May 2018 to 15 May 2018.
(2)   Fix the trial to commence on 15 May 2018, when the Court will sit to hear the Crown's opening address and any opening address which the accused wishes his lawyers to deliver.
(3)   The Court will then receive, as an exhibit, the whole of the original Family Court file of the proceedings between the accused and his former wife, Ms Blanchard.
(4)   The trial will then be adjourned to resume the commencement of evidence on Monday 9 July 2018.
(5)   The Court will sit as required in the period from 15 May 2018 to 9 July 2018 to hear and determine any outstanding issues that can conveniently be determined prior to the commencement of evidence.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application by accused for further adjournment of criminal trial – accused charged with a number of serious historical offences –difficulties faced by accused in consulting with lawyers whilst in custody – where new lawyers retained by accused – arrangements made by accused to retain forensic experts – where production and review of documents sought by subpoenas issued to third parties is incomplete – where accused sought a judge alone trial – where application for judge alone trial was granted – increased flexibility available in judge alone trial – consideration of the interests of justice – order made requiring Crown to deliver opening address in week fixed for trial – adjournment granted for two months before commencement of evidence
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225
R v Warwick (No.5) [2018] NSWSC 70
R v Warwick (No.8) [2018] NSWSC 354
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 (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Publication restriction: Not to be published until further order of the Court.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.

EX TEMPORE Judgment

On 3 March 2017 the Accused was arraigned in this Court upon an Indictment containing 24 counts. To each of those counts the Accused pleaded not guilty. The criminal conduct underlying the charges on the Indictment occurred between 1980 and 1985.
The details of these charges may be found in R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225.
The Accused was first arrested and charged on 29 July 2015. He has been in custody ever since. An application for release pursuant to the Bail Act 2013 was dismissed by this Court on 23 March 2018: R v Warwick (No.8) [2018] NSWSC 354.
At the time of…

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.20)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.20) [2018] NSWSC 656
Case: [2018] NSWSC 656
Decision Date: 11 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused in this case, Warwick, was facing a criminal trial involving a number of serious historical offences. The case was before the court as an application by the accused for a further adjournment of the criminal trial. The accused had difficulties in consulting with his lawyers while in custody, and had recently retained new legal representation. He had also arranged to retain forensic experts to assist with his defence.

The court had to decide whether to grant the accused's application for a further adjournment of the trial. The accused argued that the difficulties he had faced in consulting with his lawyers while in custody, as well as the need for his new lawyers to review documents and arrange for expert witnesses, warranted an adjournment. The court had to balance the interests of justice with the accused's right to a fair trial, and consider the impact of the delay on the prosecution and witnesses.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court granted the accused's application for a further adjournment of two months. The court recognised the importance of the accused having adequate time to prepare his defence, and the need for his new lawyers to properly consult with him and review the evidence. The court also made an order requiring the Crown to deliver its opening address in the week fixed for the trial, to ensure that the trial proceeded in an efficient and timely manner.

Orders