R v Warwick (No.40)
[2018] NSWSC 1283
•16 August 2018
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.40) [2018] NSWSC 1283 Hearing dates: 16 August 2018 Date of orders: 16 August 2018 Decision date: 16 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: The Photogrammetry Plan of the Kingdom Hall and the copy of it admitted as Exh 68.
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility of plan drawn of crime scene – 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:
Solicitors:
K McKay / G Christofi (Crown)
A R Conolly / E Ramsay (Accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co (Accused)
File Number(s): 2015/222068 Publication restriction: Not Applicable
EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.1748)
-
The Crown seeks to tender a plan drawn of the Kingdom Hall at Casula after the bomb had exploded on 21 July 1985. The Accused objects to the tender.
-
Mr Sheather, the present witness, has given evidence that, in his capacity as the head of the Ballistics Unit of the NSW Police Force, he was the officer in charge of the Kingdom Hall site. He has said in evidence that amongst other investigations which he caused to be, and which were, undertaken, the Photogrammetry Unit of the NSW Police Force was summoned to the site for the purpose of preparing a plan in order to document what was to be seen at the site.
The Proposed Exhibit
-
The plan that is tendered, besides identifying the site, has recorded on it the following label:
“Survey by Terrestrial Photogrammetry Unit 21/7/1985 by Detective Senior Constable R N Adams of Photogrammetry Unit Scientific Investigation Section drawn for Det Sgt J Sheather of Ballistics Unit SIS”.
-
The plan also notes that minor detail is omitted.
Relevance
-
The Crown also tenders this plan on the basis that it is relevant to establish the steps taken in the investigation and the adequacy of the investigation of the Kingdom Hall bombing. The tender of the plan for that purpose is relevant to rebut the attack made by the Accused on the Police investigation.
-
In my view, as well, the content of the plan is relevant as evidence of the consequences for the bombing, including where particular features are to be seen and their precise location. It demonstrates in a diagrammatic form drawn to scale, the scene of the Kingdom Hall bombing.
-
The Accused objects to the admission of the plan because the person who prepared it, Detective R N Adams, has not been called to identify it and that by reference to his December 2015 statement, Mr Sheather is not capable of identifying it. It is submitted that this witness has no memory in detail of how the plan was prepared and that he is not the appropriate witness to give evidence of it.
-
The witness’ December 2015 statement notes that he was shown the plan and a smaller copy of it. He recorded the material on the label to which I have referred. The statement then says this:
“‘This document appears to be a detailed plan of the crime scene of the Jehovah’s Witness Church. This is the kind of plan that Terrestrial Photogrammetry produce in order to record the scene prior to examination. I am very familiar with this kind of plan and have seen them used across many crimes scenes”.
-
This extract does not support the submission made by the Accused that the witness was not capable of identifying the plan. It seems to me that he was able so to do. The Accused did not seek to examine Mr Sheather on the voir dire to further test his knowledge.
-
One of the issues in these proceedings amongst many is the adequacy of the investigation by Police into the crime scene at the Kingdom Hall.
Conclusion
-
In my view, although this plan was not prepared by this witness, having regard to his position in the investigation at the time, the content of the label of the document and the type and nature of the document, the plan has been adequately identified by Mr Sheather and is admissible.
-
I admit the Photogrammetry Plan of the Kingdom Hall and the copy of it as Exh 68.
******
Amendments
31 August 2018 - Addition of transcript reference.
Decision last updated: 31 August 2018
0
1