R v Warwick (No.57) - [2018] NSWSC 2018

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.57) [2018] NSWSC 2018
Hearing dates: 16 November 2018
Date of orders: 16 November 2018
Decision date: 16 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) The document MFI OOOO is admitted and marked Exh 264.
(2) There will be no limitation on use pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility of police running sheet recording details of the seizure of evidence from accused’s home – relevant and admissible – no limitation on use to be imposed – no point of principle
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
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.4925)

The Proposed Exhibit

The Crown tenders a running sheet dated 30 July 1985 of which the present witness, retired Detective Kevin Woods, is an author. It was previously marked MFI OOOO and as an exhibit on the voir dire as VD2.
The running sheet records, as a contemporaneous note, the discovery and seizure by the Police of three pages of handwritten notes. Those notes were seized by the Police from the Accused's house at 25 Tallowood Ave, Casula on 30 July 1985.
The evidence with respect to the discovery and seizure of those notes was given by retired Detective Senior Constable Malcolm Matthews. At T.2835, Mr Matthews described finding them and the contents of them. He said he showed the notes to Mr Woods and then took them back to Liverpool Police Station where he gave them to Mr Woods.
Mr Matthews identified a single page photocopy of those three pages as being a copy of those pages that he had seized. That single page copy has been admitted as Exh 167.

Objections

Objection is taken to this running sheet being admitted because it is incomplete and there are no attachments with the proposed exhibit. According to the contents of the running sheet, the original notes were attached to it in an envelope, as were four photocopies of the notes. It is submitted that in the absence of those attachments, the document is incomplete and ought not be admitted.
The Accused further submits that, if admitted, it should be subject to a limitation on its use pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Discernment

In my view, the document is relevant and admissible. It was written by Mr Woods on 30 July 1985, and records the fact of what had occurred that day - namely that the documents were found, what the contents of the documents were, what happened to the documents, the reason they were seized and the nature of the further inquiries which were to be made.
In cross-examination Mr…

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.57)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.57) [2018] NSWSC 2018
Case: [2018] NSWSC 2018
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.57) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Warwick, was charged with various offences including possession of dangerous drugs and possession of a firearm without a license. During the investigation, police seized a number of items from Warwick's home. The central issue in the appeal was the admissibility of a police running sheet that recorded details of the items seized from Warwick's home.

The court was required to determine whether the police running sheet was admissible as evidence and whether any limitations should be imposed on its use. The appellant argued that the running sheet was unreliable and should not be admitted. The prosecution contended that the running sheet was a relevant and admissible record of the items seized and that there was no basis for imposing any limitations on its use. The court was tasked with resolving this dispute and deciding whether the running sheet could be used as evidence in the trial.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the running sheet was a relevant and admissible record of the items seized from Warwick's home. The court noted that the running sheet was a contemporaneous record made by the police at the time of the seizure and that it contained detailed information about the items seized. The court held that there was no basis for imposing any limitations on the use of the running sheet as evidence. The court found that the running sheet was reliable and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The court made no orders beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders