R v Warwick (No.29)

[2018] NSWSC 901

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Warwick (No.29) [2018] NSWSC 901
Hearing dates:	14 and 15 June 2018
Date of orders:	18 June 2018
Decision date:	18 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Garling J
Decision:	(1)   Set aside paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Schedule to the Subpoena filed by the Accused on 1 June 2018 (being Exh TA); (2)   Set aside paragraph 2 of the Schedule to Exh TA except (a) and (c), and then only so far as those notebooks refer to enquiries or investigations made with respect to: (i)   Timothy BRISTOW; (ii)   Reginald David SHATFORD; and/or (iii)   Graham Russell STOLZ and only insofar as those notebooks refer to the matters set out in Exh TC. (3)   Set aside paragraph 9 of the Schedule to Exh TA except as follows: (i)   all recordings, notebook entries, duty book entries and the documents created during the investigation into the matters in paragraph (a) of the Schedule to Exh TA of, including, and referring to, OWEN MUHN; and (ii)   any and all statements made by Khaled Hamze (also known as Khaled Hamzy) prior to 3 January 2018, together with all notebook or duty book entries relating to the obtaining, variation and finalisation of any such statement. (4)   Otherwise dismiss the Notice of Motion filed by the Commissioner of the NSW Police on 12 June 2018, seeking orders with respect to Exh TA.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application to set aside paragraphs of a subpoena issued to Commissioner of NSW Police – where subpoena sought historical Police documents including notebooks and operating manuals – where subpoena also sought search warrant records and interview records – whether subpoena amounted to discovery and was a fishing expedition – where a legitimate forensic purpose existed only in respect of certain paragraphs – schedule to the subpoena set aside in part – balance of notice of motion dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Alister v R [1984] HCA 85; (1984) 154 CLR 404 Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; (2008) 182 A Crim R 536 Carroll v Attorney-General for NSW (1993) 70 A Crim R Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of NSW v Tastan (1994) 75 A Crim R 498 R v Saleam [1989] 16 NSWLR 14; (1989) 39 A Crim R 406 R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86 R v Warwick (No.12) [2018] NSWSC 522 R v Warwick (No.16) [2018] NSWSC 733 R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225 R v Warwick (No.28) [2018] NSWSC 812 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Conolly [2003] NSWSC 327; (2003) 57 NSWLR 310
Texts Cited:	Not Applicable
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Crown Leonard John Warwick (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: L Steuckradt (Crown) A R Conolly / E Ramsay (Accused) P Singleton (Commissioner NSW Police)   Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) A R Conolly & Co (Accused) NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office (Commissioner NSW Police)
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

1. In two previous judgments, namely R v Warwick (No.16) [2018] NSWSC 733 and R v Warwick (No.28) [2018] NSWSC 812, I considered and dealt with two Notices of Motion filed by the Commissioner for the NSW Police with respect to subpoenas served upon him by the Accused in these proceedings.

2. The Motion now before the Court, filed on 12 June 2018, deals with a further subpoena addressed to the Commissioner of the NSW Police, which was filed on 1 June 2018. That subpoena has been marked Exh TA so as to enable it to be readily identified.

3. In R v Warwick (No.12) [2018] NSWSC 522, between [28]-[35] I set out concisely the relevant legal principles applicable to considering whether or not a subpoena ought be set aside in whole or in part. There is no need to repeat those principles here, but I do propose to supplement them by some further comments.

4. As well, a full description of the facts and circumstances contained within the Crown case is to be found in R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225 and in the opening of the Crown delivered on 15 May 2018.

5. The disposition of the issues presently to be determined on this Motion is addressed upon the basis that the previous judgments referred to have been read as elucidating principles and as well, the facts and circumstances which are relevant.

Legal Principles

6. It is convenient to refer to some further matters in addition to the legal principles earlier discussed. One of these matters is the decision of Adams J in Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Conolly [2003] NSWSC 327; (2003) 57 NSWLR 310. This authority was relied upon by the Accused.

7. The decision was cited as authority for the proposition that when a party is addressing that part of the issues necessary to be dealt with in order to uphold the subpoena, namely that it is “on the cards” that the documents sought would materially assist that party, will be sufficient if a legitimate forensic purpose has been identified and that purpose is accompanied by “… the reasonable chance that the documents in question might support the defence …”.

8. Here, the Accused submitted that the subpoena which has been issued on his behalf satisfied this test.

9. However, I note that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; (2008) 182 A Crim R 536, doubted the correctness of that test. Beazley JA (with whom James and Kirby JJ agreed), said that the likely effect of the decision in RTA was to create a situation whereby once relevance was established, there would almost always “be a reasonable chance” that the material sought would assist an applicant to establish a case proposed to be made at trial. Her Honour said, by reference to earlier decisions of Alister v R [1984] HCA 85; (1984) 154 CLR 404, Carroll v Attorney-General (NSW) (1993) 70 A Crim R 162 and R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86 that “something more than that is required” and that the approach in RTA should not be followed.

10. I am bound by the approach set out by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Chidgey and, accordingly, will apply the principles there discussed.

11. The Commissioner drew attention to a decision of Barr AJ in Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of NSW v Tastan (1994) 75 A Crim R 498. This decision dealt with a question of whether a subpoena seeking documents relating to a warrant issued under the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW) ought be permitted.

12. Barr AJ, at 504, noted that:

“[i]t is the duty of the Court, where the issue is raised, to require the party calling on a subpoena to provide documents to identify expressly and precisely the legitimate forensic purpose for which access to documents is sought and to refuse access unless such an identification is made.”

13. His Honour drew attention to R v Saleam [1989] 16 NSWLR 14; (1989) 39 A Crim R 406; and also to Attorney-General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667 at 681; (1994) 75 A Crim R 8 at 21.

14. At 505, a concise statement was made as to the appropriate law applicable. Barr AJ said:

“A subpoena to produce documents will have a legitimate forensic purpose if it appears to be ‘on the cards’ that the documents will materially assist the person at whose request the subpoena is issued: … On the other hand, there will be no legitimate forensic purpose if all the party is doing is trying to get hold of the documents to see whether they may assist him at all in his case: …”

Terms of the Subpoena

15. The subpoena marked Exh TA was issued at the request of the Accused on 1 June 2018. The Schedule to the subpoena commences by identifying the seven distinct events of criminality relied on by the Crown with respect to the offences set out in the Indictment (“the Events”). It also identifies three Coronial Inquiries into the deaths of individuals associated with those seven Events, and the examination of Family Court files, carried out at the Parramatta Family Court.

16. The Notice of Motion seeks to challenge only a number of the paragraphs in the subpoena. As well, correspondence between the parties has resulted in the lawyers for the Accused limiting some of the categories which are challenged.

17. In light of the approach taken by the parties in the course of their submissions, it is appropriate to set out the paragraphs which are challenged, together with any limitations which the lawyers for the Accused have indicated that they are prepared to accept.

18. The first paragraph in the Schedule is to the following effect:

“The NSW Police Force Handbook, in force and provided to Police Officers for the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2018.”

19. In correspondence, it was noted that a Handbook was available in the library of the NSW Police Force, and one is available online, which seems to be dated 2016.

20. The Accused limited sections of the Handbook to 45 subject matters, each of which seems to be addressed by a separate section in the Handbook.

21. Paragraph 2 of the schedule to Exh TA is also challenged. That paragraph is in the following terms:

“The note books and duty books of the following Police officers during the years 1980 to date in relation to the matters referred to at paragraph (a) above: …”

22. Thereafter follows the names of 20 Police officers who, it appears, have had roles to play in the investigations into the Events carried out during the 1980s and then when the investigations recommenced in about 2013.

23. Correspondence from the Crown Solicitor’s Office identified the fact that this paragraph in this form, appears to be excessively broad and sought a narrowing of the paragraph “… so as to refer to particular topics or tasks conducted during the course of the investigation”. It also identified the absence of any legitimate forensic purpose.

24. In correspondence, the solicitors for the Accused said:

“The defence limits the request for material within the Police notebooks to investigations, enquiries, attendances at the scene and collection of evidence. From our review of the Police notebooks of Detective King, the information in the Police notebooks is critical to the defence and will assist the defence in investigating the events, assessing the competency of the Police investigation, cross-examining Police, cross-examining witnesses in relation to the circumstances in which their statements were taken, obtaining additional information such as the length of time the Police were at premises or conducting investigations or enquiries.”

25. Paragraph 3 of the subpoena referred to the same 20 identified police officers and sought the following:

“The record of notebooks issued which records the number of the book issued, cross references with the number of the book returned, the date issued, the name and signature of the officer issuing the new book and receiving the old book, the date returned, and the name and signature of the officer receiving new book and returning old and the reissue and movement of filed books in relation to the following Police Officers during the period 1980 to date insofar as these note books relate to or contain information concerning the matters referred to in paragraph (a)(i) to (vii) above.”

26. When challenged about the legitimate forensic purpose of these records, the solicitors for the Accused responded by saying:

“The defence requires the information as it will assist the defence in investigating the events, assessing the competency of the Police investigation, cross-examining Police, cross-examining witnesses in relation to circumstances in which their statements were taken, obtaining additional information such as the length of time the Police were at premises or conducting investigations or enquiries.

The defence will be assisted by knowing the number of note books which the Police investigating the matter received, completed and returned. The defence will be in a position to cross-examine the Police in relation to the adequacy of statements, running sheets and other evidence disclosed to and served on the defence if the details of the note books of each of the relevant Police officers at the relevant time is identified. The defence will then know, in addition to the Police note books produced in answer to paragraph 2, the involvement of the Police in these investigations, whether they were focussed on these investigations or on other matters.”

27. Paragraph 4 is a very lengthy paragraph. It is unnecessary to reproduce it in its entirety. It contains 11 sub-paragraphs covering a range of methods, practices, standards and procedures in place during the years nominated.

28. The description of the documents required in the Schedule to Exh TA was in the following form:

“The Police manual and Police directions to officers in relation to the following matters during the years 1980 to 1985 and 2013 to 2018 inclusive.”

29. That introduction was modified by correspondence to the following:

“Police handbooks, guidelines, standard operating procedures and manuals created by the NSW Police Force for the guidance and instruction of Police officers in the conduct of their duties.”

30. The purpose for which these documents were required was set out in correspondence in the following way:

“The documents to be produced will assist the defence in cross-examination of the Police, cross-examination of witnesses, examination of the compliance by Police with their own procedures from time to time in relation to the collection of forensic evidence, retention of evidence, control and custody of evidence, taking statements of witnesses, recording statements from witnesses, accuracy of statements from witnesses, conducting investigations relating to informants.

There are numerous issues relevant to each aspect of this case which involve the compliance or not by Police with their own directions from time to time. It is essential that in relation to each year, when particular Police activities and investigation enquiries, custody of exhibits, discussions with informants and other material was completed, that the relevant Police manual and directions in force at that time be produced to the defence so that it is able to cross-examine the Police officers and examine the expert evidence in relation to those issues relevant to the instructions in force at the time.”

31. Paragraph 9 is also objected to, and is in the following form:

“All records of investigations, enquiries and interviews with and communications with the following witnesses referred to in the Annexure “A” to this subpoena.”

32. Annexure A to the subpoena consists of the document produced by the Crown, at the direction of the Court, containing the order of witnesses for trial. It refers to 278 witnesses. Some of these witnesses are noted as being deceased, but are included on the list so as to enable their evidence to be tendered chronologically and in a manner appropriate to the unfolding of the trial.

33. The Commissioner drew attention to this paragraph in the letter of 12 June 2018 in these terms:

“As drafted, this paragraph appears to be broad, oppressive and lacking a legitimate forensic purpose. Given it seeks ‘all records of investigations …’ with 278 witnesses – which appears to be all of the witnesses proposed to be called during the trial – it is tantamount to discovery.”

34. The response from the solicitor for the Accused was in the following terms:

“The documents sought are relevant, particularly in the circumstances of this matter, where the claim for the documents as requested are pressed.

…

The complete documents of the investigations, enquiries, interviews and communications with the witnesses are relevant in circumstances where the material from the witnesses is incomplete, the evidence of witnesses changes on further investigation by Police, [and] enquiries recommended by Police have not been undertaken.”

35. Paragraph 10 seeks to obtain each application for a search warrant for the premises of the Accused, his father’s premises and his workplace including the affidavits in support, emails and communications and the search warrants actually issued.

36. The purpose of the search warrants was identified in this way:

“The Crown are unable to produce all of the search warrants relating to those searches. It is relevant to cross-examination of the Police and of any person involved in the searches, to know the basis on which the application for the search warrant was made at the time, and the evidence available to the Police at that time.”

37. Paragraphs 15 to 18 seek a range of records, including emails, file notes, reports, memorandums and texts involving the identification of the Police officers conducting a search during 2018 of archived material and electronic records.

38. The Commissioner sought an identification of the legitimate forensic purpose for the paragraphs of the subpoena. No such purpose was specified in the correspondence from the solicitors for the Accused.

39. Finally, paragraphs 19 and 20 seek records of investigations of Jeffrey David Evans and Maureen Evans during the period 1980 to 1995 and any records of interviews undertaken in February 2015.

40. The records of investigations are said to relate to harassment of, threats against and mail tampering of parcels and posts of Mr Evans, and any security arrangements or recommendations with respect to security arrangements made by the Police for the protection of Mr and Mrs Evans.

41. Mr and Mrs Evans were the owners of the premises at which Event 6 occurred. They were not living there at that time.

Further Evidence

42. At the hearing of the application on the issues relating to setting aside the subpoena, other than whether the obligations created by it were oppressive, the Accused read the affidavit of Elizabeth Ramsay of 14 June 2018. That affidavit, together with Ms Ramsay’s oral and written submissions, added to the contents of the subpoena and the exchange of correspondence.

43. The affidavit identified some specific issues with respect to production of documents, and some specific issues about identified individuals.

Discernment

44. It is convenient to determine each of these paragraphs individually.

Paragraphs 1 and 4

45. These paragraphs can be considered together, because what they seek is the contemporaneous Police handbooks, standard operating procedures, manuals or guidelines directed to Police officers in the undertaking of their duties. It is these documents against which it is intended by the solicitors for the Accused to measure, or test, the various investigations and other Police enquiries and conduct of those involved in both the investigation of the Events at the time they occurred in the 1980s, and during the re-investigation of those Events commencing in 2013.

46. The substance of the forensic purpose identified by the Accused with respect to these paragraphs was to examine whether the Police officers from time to time complied with their own procedures.

47. It was submitted that one of the issues in the proceedings is the adequacy of the manner in which the Police investigated the scene of each of the bombings, collected exhibits and pursued their investigations. The Accused submitted that, to the extent that the Police did not comply with requisite handbooks and manuals, that would be material for the cross-examination of those Police officers.

48. When pressed in oral submissions to identify the specific purpose of these paragraphs, Ms Ramsay made this submission:

“We are not saying [referring to Police officers] that their breach of the Regulations or directions is relevant in itself, but the procedures that the Police have laid down for their officers, and the extent to which those officers either individually or extensively in their investigation failed to follow those directions, is relevant material for cross-examination in relation to the adequacy of [the investigations conducted by] the officers, the competence of the officers. It is not merely in relation to the final conclusion … which is a denial of Mr Warwick’s involvement in any of these events. In circumstances where the collection of exhibits is explained in the Police Manual or directions as having a particular procedure and reason for that procedure, then the defence would say that those should be investigated.”

49. It was later put that it was “forensically necessary for the cross-examination of the Police witnesses and experts”.

50. These submissions confirm what is inherent in the terms of these paragraphs in the subpoena, namely that the Accused is engaged on an exercise of attempting to obtain documents by way of subpoena where there is no clearly identified forensic purpose for the material. The fact that the material may be able to be used in cross-examination of a range of possible witnesses is not of itself sufficient to uphold the terms of a subpoena.

51. The submissions of the Accused did not identify with any particularity any individual Police officers in respect of whom specific conduct issues relating to competency or credibility would be likely to be raised at trial.

52. Rather, as the correspondence between the parties demonstrated, the contents of paragraphs 1 and 4 were asserted to be relevant with respect to a broad-ranging enquiry about the conduct of Police investigations either in the 1980s or else more recently.

53. The submissions with respect to these two paragraphs did not embrace any particularity at all, but were rather pursued on the basis that it was open to the Accused to obtain documents if the documents may be relevant to the cross‑examination of one or more of the Police witnesses and experts.

54. As the authorities show, mere relevance is not enough. Having regard to issues raised, it must be “on the cards” that the documents will materially assist the case for the Accused. The submissions did not rise to the necessary threshold for the Court to be satisfied that these paragraphs of the subpoena should be upheld.

55. Accordingly, these paragraphs of the subpoena will be set aside.

Paragraph 2

56. Paragraph 2 sought the production of notebooks of a range of nominated Police officers.

57. The purpose for those documents was expressed, again in generality, in the correspondence between the parties. That purpose was repeated in the oral submissions.

58. It is apparent from the contents of the correspondence that it is the Accused’s intention to assess the competency of the Police investigation, to in effect to attempt to recreate where particular officers were or were not at any particular time, and to establish what they were doing at those times with respect to the investigation of these criminal Events.

59. In part, that exercise will be undertaken on the basis of the documents produced by way of cross-examination of the Police and of lay witnesses in relation to circumstances in which their statements were taken.

60. Specific circumstances were identified with respect to investigations undertaken by Police of one possible suspect, Mr Tim Bristow, and his associates, and with respect to Mr Khaled Hamze (or Hamzy). The material tendered to the Court in respect of these individuals satisfies me that the Accused has a legitimate forensic purpose for obtaining the relevant Police notebooks or statements or the results of other investigations because of the apparent role that these people played at the time of the Events taking place.

61. However, with one exception, to which it will be necessary to address, the submissions of the Accused fail to identify with particularity any other aspect of the Police investigation as to which the production of these notebooks would directly relate. The submissions neither identify the nature of the material which it is anticipated would be produced, nor the way in which it would be “on the cards” that the documents caught by this paragraph would assist the Accused’s case.

62. The only other matter to which it is necessary to make specific reference is the submission that the circumstances surrounding the change of recollection of Ms Judy Morier between statements is of such significance that all of the surrounding material from Police notebooks ought to be produced.

63. To the extent that that issue is relevant, and at the moment that is not apparent, the mere fact that a witness has changed their recollection of a particular date or of when an event occurred, is not immediately indicative of that change being as a consequence of any interaction between a Police officer and the witness.

64. The submissions put with respect to this issue were, in my assessment, unconvincing. The fact that the witness has made a change in dates seems to be apparent from successive statements. The witness can be cross‑examined about those matters.

65. If it becomes apparent before any cross-examination that there are in existence records which would throw light on that matter, and in a way which would make it on the cards that their production would materially assist the Accused’s case, then the matter can be addressed at that point.

66. This paragraph will be accordingly set aside, but for the two specific areas which I have noted.

Paragraph 3

67. Paragraph 3 seeks documents which, in effect, relate to identification of the Police notebooks that were issued over that period. These records would, as it seems to me, be regarded as no more than providing evidence of an audit or a check against which the production of notebooks could be measured for adequacy.

68. This paragraph rises no higher than the previous paragraph at best. At no time was it demonstrated that there was any reason for the material here to be produced. In my view, on the basis of the material presently available, the contents of that paragraph are entirely irrelevant, and the paragraph should be set aside in its entirety.

Paragraph 9

69. Paragraph 9 is a broad-ranging enquiry with respect to all of the witnesses who are scheduled to give evidence. The submissions by the Accused identified that what was being sought was, in effect, the source documents or the basis for the compilation of running sheets which had been annexed to, or else referred to in, the statements of witnesses. The submission was made that because the running sheets were not the original records, the Accused was entitled to see the original records to establish the authenticity and accuracy of them.

70. The purpose, as it seems to me, for the Accused with respect to the documents sought in this paragraph, was to enable the Accused to examine whether, and if so to what extent, it may be in the Accused’s interest to put in issue the evidence of one or more the Crown witnesses listed in the Order of Witnesses.

71. The problem with this broad approach is that, so it seems from the opening, although only a partial one, of the solicitor for the Accused, the happening of the Events themselves is not in issue. What is in issue is whether the Accused had any motive at all to commit these offences, whether he had the knowledge, skill and capacity to commit the offences, whether he had the opportunity to commit the offences and whether the Crown’s case is sufficient to prove that the Accused was the perpetrator of one or more of the Events.

72. It can be anticipated, not unreasonably, that the evidence of many of the listed witnesses will not be in dispute or in issue. To seek, as this paragraph of the Schedule to the subpoena does, all of the records relating to the investigations and statements of all of the witnesses is to over-reach.

73. Further, in order to establish a legitimate forensic purpose, and that it is on the cards that a class of documents will be likely to meet the relevant tests, it is necessary for the Accused to establish that, in the circumstances of this subpoena, particular running sheets compiled by an identified Police officer, or else running sheets relating to a particular witness, are of such a kind as would demonstrate the need to examine any underlying documents.

74. The Accused, except in respect of one specified individual, did not attempt to do so. I am satisfied that documents relating to Mr Owen Muhn are properly to be produced.

75. The balance of paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the subpoena cannot be upheld, as the Accused has not established any legitimate forensic purpose for these documents, nor that it is on the cards that they would assist his case.

Paragraph 10

76. This paragraph seeks documents relating to all of the searches carried out at the Accused’s home, his workplace and his father’s home.

77. There will be evidence led by the Crown as to each of these searches and as to the lawful basis for each of the searches.

78. Insofar as the lawful basis for the searches was a search warrant issued by a requisite authority, the Accused did not identify with respect to any one or more of those search warrants that the issuing of the warrant was to be challenged (assuming that to be possible in the course of the trial), nor that any of the warrants had been challenged by any form of judicial review or other like process.

79. In those circumstances, to merely seek to identify the knowledge of those who were engaged in the searches and the purpose of the searches is to seek to conduct a fishing expedition of a kind which is simply not permitted.

80. No legitimate forensic purpose for the documents sought by this paragraph has been established.

81. It would be inappropriate to uphold this paragraph, and it will be set aside.

Paragraphs 15 to 18

82. These paragraphs relate to a recent exercise by officers of the NSW Police of locating and examining the contents of a large number of boxes of archived material, as well as and a large number of online records.

83. The purpose of these paragraphs appears to me to be an attempt to examine the adequacy of disclosure by officers of NSW Police.

84. The obligation of disclosure is a clear and well-defined one.

85. If there is any failure of disclosure of a significant kind, or a kind which may impact on the occurrence of a fair trial, then that is a matter which goes to the administration of justice generally. It may or may not go to an individual issue in any particular trial.

86. However, the use of a subpoena within the trial, involving the paragraphs here described, is not a legitimate means to identify whether disclosure has in fact been adequate, or else whether it has been engaged in in a manner which is appropriately resourced, or whether disclosure occurred within a reasonable time frame.

87. These paragraphs relate to no issue in the proceedings and I am not satisfied that any legitimate forensic purpose has been shown with respect to them.

Paragraphs 19 and 20

88. These paragraphs relate to the individuals who owned the house at which the bomb described in Event 6 was discovered. The Crown’s case is that the bomb was planted in order to target Ms Blanchard’s solicitor who had previously lived at the property. The submissions of the Accused make it clear that there was sufficient concern about the safety of the owners of the property, although they were not living in the property at the time, to have caused Police to make investigations about a series of events which affected them.

89. Because this is a circumstantial case which, in respect of the offences relating to this Event, requires the drawing of inferences, I am satisfied that there is a legitimate forensic purpose in the Accused having available to him the investigations with respect to the owners of this property.

90. If, as appears from the submissions, Mr and Mrs Evans were subject to threats and mail-tampering, it is on the cards that those investigations may assist the Accused. They may not. But I am satisfied that the Accused has demonstrated that these paragraphs should be maintained and that the Commissioner’s Motion with respect to them should fail.

Conclusion

91. In general terms, I have concluded that the challenged paragraphs, even where limited in description, have not been proved to be properly the subject of a subpoena because no legitimate forensic purpose has been demonstrated, or else it is not on the cards that the documents will materially assist the Accused.

92. It is for those reasons that the specific orders which follow were made on 18 June 2018.

Orders

93. I make the following orders:

1. Set aside paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Schedule to the Subpoena filed by the Accused on 1 June 2018 (being Exh TA);

2. Set aside paragraph 2 of the Schedule to Exh TA except (a) and (c), and then only so far as those notebooks refer to enquiries or investigations made with respect to:

1. Timothy BRISTOW;

2. Reginald David SHATFORD; and/or

3. Graham Russell STOLZ

and only insofar as those notebooks refer to the matters set out in Exh TC.

3. Set aside paragraph 9 of the Schedule to Exh TA except as follows:

1. all recordings, notebook entries, duty book entries and the documents created during the investigation into the matters in paragraph (a) of the Schedule to Exh TA of, including, and referring to, OWEN MUHN; and

2. any and all statements made by Khaled Hamze (also known as Khaled Hamzy) prior to 3 January 2018, together with all notebook or duty book entries relating to the obtaining, variation and finalisation of any such statement.

4. Otherwise dismiss the Notice of Motion filed by the Commissioner of the NSW Police on 12 June 2018, seeking orders with respect to Exh TA.

******

Amendments

18 February 2020 - Non publication order lifted on 14 February 2020.

Decision last updated: 18 February 2020