R v Warwick (No.40) - [2018] NSWSC 1283

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:
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 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.…

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.40)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.40) [2018] NSWSC 1283
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1283
Decision Date: 16 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.40) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Warwick, was on trial for various charges including burglary and theft. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of a plan of the crime scene, which was intended to be used as evidence during the trial. The prosecution argued that the plan would assist in illustrating the sequence of events and the location of stolen items. Warwick, on the other hand, contested the plan's admissibility, asserting that it was prejudicial and did not accurately reflect the scene as it was during the time of the crime.

The court was required to determine whether the plan met the criteria for admissibility under the rules of evidence. This involved assessing whether the plan was a true and accurate representation of the crime scene and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the jury. The court also had to consider whether the plan could assist the jury in understanding the evidence or the issues in the case. The admissibility of the plan was crucial as it was central to the prosecution's case.

The Supreme Court found that the plan was both accurate and relevant to the issues being tried. The court held that the plan was a fair and accurate representation of the crime scene and that its probative value substantially outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendant. The court concluded that the plan would assist the jury in understanding the evidence and the issues in the case, and therefore, it was admissible. The trial proceeded with the plan being used as evidence, contributing to the prosecution's case. The final outcome of the trial was not detailed in the excerpt provided, but the admissibility of the plan was a significant procedural matter that was resolved in favour of the prosecution.

Orders