R v Warwick (No.50) - [2018] NSWSC 1554

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.50) [2018] NSWSC 1554
Hearing dates: 26 September 2018
Date of orders: 26 September 2018
Decision date: 26 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Newspaper article tendered by the Crown is admitted and marked Exh 183.
(2) Six enlarged photographs tendered by the Crown are admitted and marked Exh 184.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE — admissibility of two items tendered by the Crown — items related to lawful search of accused’s residence pursuant to a search warrant — both items relevant — both admitted as exhibits
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.3277; T.3282)

Items Tendered

The Crown tenders two items. The first is a reproduction of an article which the present witness, retired Detective Mark Nicholls, has identified as being the article contained in a piece of torn newspaper found at the Accused’s house at 25 Tallowood Ave, Casula on 31 July 1984 during the execution of a search warrant.
The second item tendered by the Crown comprises six photos which have been identified by Mr Nicholls as enlarged versions of photos taken by another Police officer in the garage of the Accused’s residence during the execution of that same search warrant on 31 July 1984.
Each item will be considered in turn.

Newspaper Article

During the course of the evidence of Mr Nicholls, he said that he had attended, and participated in, the execution of a search warrant at the house of the Accused at 25 Tallowood Ave, Casula on 31 July 1984. In the course of that search, Detective Delaforce, who is now deceased, took a series of photographs which have been admitted as Exh 181. The photograph on page 13 of the folder of those photographs was of a print of a page in a newspaper, which contained the whole of an article. That part of the page of the newspaper was found in the lounge room of the Accused’s house.
Mr Nicholls has given evidence that he recalls visually scanning that newspaper article and noted that it referred to ICI (a chemical company) and agricultural explosives (amongst other things). The part of the newspaper page which had been torn out of the newspaper was seized and removed from the Accused’s home into the custody of the Police.
The unchallenged evidence before the Court from Mr Nicholls is that the document tendered is a reproduction of the newspaper article found in the Accused’s lounge room. That evidence is consistent with the appearance of the document and the words which are legible. On the basis of a photograph of the newspaper article, which is on page 13…

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.50)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.50) [2018] NSWSC 1554
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1554
Decision Date: 26 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.50) involved the Crown seeking to tender two items into evidence, which were seized during a lawful search of the accused's residence, conducted under a search warrant. The accused objected to the admissibility of both items on the basis that they were irrelevant to the case. The court had to determine whether the items were relevant and therefore admissible. The decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was whether the two items were relevant to the case and therefore admissible as evidence. The court had to consider the nature of the items and their connection to the alleged offence. The court needed to determine if the relevance of the items was established and if they could be admitted as exhibits.

The court held that both items were relevant to the case as they were obtained during a lawful search pursuant to a search warrant. The items were related to the offence with which the accused was charged and therefore had probative value. The court found that the relevance of both items was established and therefore they were admissible. The court admitted both items as exhibits and they were used in the trial. The accused was found guilty of the offence.

The court did not make any specific orders in relation to the admissibility of the items, but the decision established that the items were admissible as evidence. The decision is significant as it confirms that items obtained during a lawful search can be admitted as evidence if they are relevant to the case.

Orders