Legal Research
Cases
R v Warwick (No.30)

R v Warwick (No.30)

Case [2018] NSWSC 1051 12 July 2018

Limitation Periods

Discovery & Disclosure

Interlocutory Orders

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.30) [2018] NSWSC 1051
Hearing dates: 3 July 2018, 4 July 2018, 5 July 2018, 6 July 2018
Date of orders: 06 July 2018
Decision date: 12 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) The Amended Notice of Motion filed in Court on 3 July 2018 by the Accused, which has been referred to as the ‘June Adjournment Application’, is dismissed.
(2) In light of the time occupied this week for the hearing of the unsuccessful June Adjournment motion, I direct that the hearing of evidence in the trial is to commence at 10am on Monday 16 July 2018.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – third application by accused for further adjournment of criminal trial – accused charged with a number of serious historical offences – allegations of inadequate disclosure by the Crown and police – where voluminous material had been produced by parties subpoenaed by the accused – delay in defence obtaining expert witnesses – where order of Crown witnesses had been amended after discussions with lawyers for the accused – not satisfied that an adjournment would be in the interests of justice to adjourn application – application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pre-trial Disclosure) Act 2001
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986
Cases Cited: Cornwell v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 59
Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292
Gould v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2018] NSWCCA 109
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559
R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746; [1994] 2 All ER 478
R v Lipton [2011] NSWCCA 247; (2012) 82 NSWLR 123
R v MM [2004] NSWCCA 81; (2004) 145 A Crim R 148
R v Reardon [2004] NSWCCA 197; (2004) 60 NSWLR 454
R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225
R v Warwick (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1836
R v Warwick (No.5) [2018] NSWSC 70
R v Warwick (No.8) [2018] NSWSC 354
R v Warwick (No.16) [2018] NSWSC 733
R v Warwick (No.20) [2018] NSWSC 656
R v Warwick (No.21) [2018] NSWSC 654
R v Warwick (No.24) [2018] NSWSC 691
R v Warwick (No.28) [2018] NSWSC 812
R v Warwick (No.29) [2018] NSWSC 901
The Queen v Edwards [2009] HCA 20; (2009) 255 ALR 399
Whitehorn v The Queen [1983] HCA 42; (1983) 152 CLR 657
Texts Cited: Second Reading Speech (New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 6 December 2000
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

This judgment addresses orders sought by the Accused…

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.30)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.30) [2018] NSWSC 1051
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1051
Decision Date: 12 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Warwick (No.30), the applicant, Warwick, sought a further adjournment of his criminal trial. Warwick was facing serious historical charges, and the Crown had raised concerns about inadequate disclosure from the defence. The case involved a significant amount of material produced by parties subpoenaed by Warwick, along with delays in obtaining expert witnesses. The Crown had also amended the order of witnesses following discussions with Warwick's legal representatives. The court was tasked with deciding whether an adjournment of the trial would be in the interests of justice, considering the extensive documentation and the potential impact on the administration of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for an adjournment should be granted. The court had to weigh the alleged inadequate disclosure by the Crown and police against the delays in obtaining expert witnesses by the defence. The court also considered the impact of any adjournment on the efficiency of the administration of justice and the rights of the parties involved. The court had to determine if there was a valid reason to adjourn the trial, given the circumstances presented by both the Crown and the defence.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the application for an adjournment should be dismissed. The court was not satisfied that an adjournment would be in the interests of justice. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the efficiency of the administration of justice and the rights of the parties involved. The court found that the alleged inadequate disclosure and delays in obtaining expert witnesses did not warrant a further adjournment, and that the case could proceed as scheduled.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an adjournment be dismissed. The court ordered that the trial proceed on the scheduled date, with the understanding that all parties were to comply with the disclosure obligations and cooperate to ensure a fair trial. The court also directed the parties to make every effort to expedite the trial process, considering the significant amount of material already produced and the need to protect the rights of the accused.

Orders