R v Warwick (No.31) - [2018] NSWSC 1091

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.31) [2018] NSWSC 1091
Hearing dates: 13 July 2018
Date of orders: 13 July 2018
Decision date: 13 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Order that the Notice of Motion filed 13 July 2018 be made returnable at 9.30am on Monday 16 July 2018.
(2) Direct that the Accused’s lawyers are to inform the lawyers for the Commissioner of NSW Police of the listing on Monday 16 July 2018 at 9.30am.
(3) Refuse the application of the Accused for an adjournment of the proceedings for a period of four weeks.
(4) Decline to make any order requiring the Crown to serve any further notice pursuant to s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
(5) Stand over the further directions and hearing of that Motion to 9.30am on 16 July 2018.
(6) Note that the trial remains fixed to commence at 10am on 16 July 2018.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – various interlocutory orders sought – documents produced by NSW Police on subpoena sought in unredacted form – fourth adjournment application by the accused – further notice of Crown case sought – Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 142 – orders made
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Warwick (No.30) [2018] NSWSC 1051
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 / 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Publication restriction: Not to be published until further order of the Court.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.

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Leave is sought by the lawyers for the Accused to file in court a Notice of Motion dated 12 July 2018, which claims three particular orders. For convenience, I will refer to this Motion as the “Document Redaction Motion”.
The first order claimed is that the Commissioner of New South Wales Police (“the Commissioner”’) produce documents without redactions in answer to the subpoenas issued by the Accused. The second order is that the police officer responsible for disclosure in answering subpoenas, namely, Detective Russell, be available for cross-examination on the adequacy of compliance with subpoenas. The third order is that the hearing be adjourned for a period of 28 days from Monday, 16 July 2018.

Redacted Material

It appears from material annexed to the affidavit of Elizabeth Ramsay sworn 12 July 2018, and in particular Annexure “D”, that, at least, the duty book of Detective Dowson has been produced in a copy form with significant parts of the contents redacted in answer to one of the subpoenas issued at the request of the Accused to the Commissioner.
I am informed, and I accept, that there are other documents that have been produced on subpoena by the Commissioner which have also been redacted, so that not all information…

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.31)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.31) [2018] NSWSC 1091
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1091
Decision Date: 13 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Warwick (No.31), the appellant, Warwick, sought various interlocutory orders from the court. The primary dispute involved the production of documents obtained by the NSW Police under a subpoena. Warwick requested these documents be provided in their unredacted form. This application was the fourth adjournment sought by Warwick, and he also requested a further notice of the Crown's case. The matter was heard under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, specifically section 142.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant Warwick's application for the unredacted documents and the further notice of the Crown's case. The court had to balance Warwick's right to a fair trial, which includes access to relevant evidence, against the Crown's right to protect sensitive information that might be prejudicial if disclosed prematurely. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of further adjournments on the efficiency of the judicial process and the rights of other parties involved.

The court deliberated on the implications of granting the unredacted documents, recognising the importance of transparency in criminal proceedings. It also weighed the necessity of a further notice of the Crown's case to ensure Warwick was adequately prepared for the trial. The court concluded that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the application for unredacted documents and the further notice of the Crown's case. The court found that Warwick's right to a fair trial outweighed the potential prejudice to the Crown, and the additional adjournment was justified under the circumstances. Consequently, the court made the orders sought by Warwick, facilitating the production of the unredacted documents and providing a further notice of the Crown's case.

The court's orders were made under section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, granting Warwick the unredacted documents and the further notice of the Crown's case. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused and the Crown in criminal proceedings, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and efficiently.

Orders