R v Warwick (No.3) - [2017] NSWSC 1836

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1836
Hearing dates: 23 August 2017
Date of orders: 23 August 2017
Decision date: 23 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See [4], [5], [7], [8], [11], [13]

Catchwords: Evidence – rulings – no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Not Applicable
Cases Cited: Not Applicable
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 (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Publication restriction: Not to be published until after return of verdict by Jury or further order of the Court. Non-publication order lifted on 14 February 2020.

EX TEMPORE Judgment

This judgment contains the following ex tempore rulings made on 23 August 2017:

With respect to the reports of Ms Edmonds:

In my view both reports prepared by Mrs Edmonds, that is to say the Family Report of 16 November 1979, and the Family Report of 17 April 1980, are admissible in their entirety for the purposes outlined in Exhibit PT13, paragraph 7.
Once admitted on that basis there is no reason to restrict the use to which the contents of the reports may be put.
I am not satisfied that the admission of these documents provides any unfair prejudice to the accused. In part that is because in the Family Court proceedings it was, as I understand the procedure at the time, open to the accused to put facts before the court by affidavit contesting any version of fact contained in the Family Report.

With respect to the statement of Leslie Blanchard:

With respect to the statement of Leslie Blanchard, in my view the material which the Crown seeks to adduce is admissible save and except for any representation contained in the statement commencing in the final paragraph, second last sentence, with the words "He commenced to argue with Andrea" until the end of the statement.

With respect to the statement of Thomas Geier dated 21/07/1985

Mr Thomas takes objection to the third and fourth paragraphs on page 4 of the statement of Thomas Geier dated 21 July 1985 - they are otherwise the 11th and 12th paragraphs of the statement.
The Crown indicates that it does not propose to tender the contents of those two paragraphs. In my view they would in any event, as things presently, stand be inadmissible.

With respect to statement of David Shaw

The statement of Mr David Shaw in respect of the representations which the Crown outlines in paragraph 33 of the exhibit PT13 is, in my view, admissible.
I am not satisfied that there is any unfair prejudice which arises with respect to the accused from the admission of those representations and those facts into evidence.

With respect to the objection to evidence of Detective Sergeant Worsley

Objection is taken to the transcripts of the evidence of Detective Sergeant…

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.3)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1836
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1836
Decision Date: 23 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.3) involved the respondent, Warwick, who was convicted of a serious criminal offence. The matter was before the court on appeal, with Warwick contesting the validity of certain evidence that was used against him during the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence in question was admissible and whether its admission was a fundamental error that warranted a retrial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence in question, which was obtained through a search warrant, was admissible. The respondent argued that the warrant was not validly executed, and therefore, the evidence obtained was inadmissible. The court had to determine whether the warrant was properly issued, executed, and whether the evidence was obtained lawfully. The court was also required to consider whether the admission of the evidence constituted a fundamental error that affected the fairness of the trial.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the warrant was indeed properly issued and executed. The court found that the evidence was obtained lawfully and that its admission did not constitute a fundamental error. The court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible, and that its admission did not affect the fairness of the trial. The court further held that the respondent's arguments did not raise any question of principle that warranted a retrial.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent's conviction. The court found that the evidence in question was admissible and that its admission did not constitute a fundamental error. The court held that the trial was fair and that the respondent's conviction was valid. The court did not order a retrial, and the conviction stood.

Orders