R v Warwick (No.6) - [2018] NSWSC 234

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.6) [2018] NSWSC 234
Hearing dates: 1 March 2018
Date of orders: 01 March 2018
Decision date: 01 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) On or before midday, Friday 15 March 2018, the Crown is to serve on the accused two sets of an Electronic Court Book setting out in the order of the document headed Order of Witnesses for Trial, and by reference to each named witness, the statements and other records which are to be adduced in evidence at the trial.
(2) Direct the Crown to provide a copy to the Court by delivery to my Associate.
(3) Dismiss the Notice of Motion of 19 February 2018 of the accused which has been called the Crown Brief Motion.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – interlocutory orders –motion for re-service of Crown brief in specified form – mandatory pre-trial disclosure obligations – Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 141(1)(a) – order made for production of an electronic court book – motion otherwise dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
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 Conolly (Sol) / E Ramsay (Sol) (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Not to be published until after return of verdict by Jury or further order of the Court. Non publication order lifted on 14 February 2020.

EX TEMPORE Judgment

By a Notice of Motion filed on 19 February 2018, the accused sought the following orders.

“1. Direct that the Crown serve or re-serve in one bundle (both in hard copy and soft copy) all documents required to be served under s 141(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 so that:
(a)   documents are collated separately in relation to each count in the indictment, or where appropriate each group of counts (but ignoring relevance to any count only by reason of being or being connected to tendency evidence or coincidence evidence);
(b)   in respect of each document that is said to be relevant to another count or counts by reason of being or being connected to tendency evidence or coincidence evidence, there be a statement to that effect in respect of such document;
(c)   the bundle is paginated; and
(d)   there be on the cover of the bundle an index of the documents therein.”

In support of that affidavit the accused relied upon two affidavits of Ms Elizabeth Ramsay; one sworn 18 February 2018, and the other 28 February 2018. In response, the Crown relied upon the affidavit of Ms Emily Poole of 21 February 2018.
The submissions of the accused can, I hope not unfairly or inaccurately, be summarised in this way. First, there has never been a single consolidated Crown Brief served. Secondly, that the original Police Brief served during the course of…

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.6)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.6) [2018] NSWSC 234
Case: [2018] NSWSC 234
Decision Date: 01 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Warwick (No.6), the respondent, Warwick, applied to the court for an order requiring the Crown to re-serve the brief in a specific form, as well as seeking a direction that the Crown must produce an electronic court book in accordance with the mandatory pre-trial disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The application was made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent's application for the re-service of the brief and the production of an electronic court book should be granted. The legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of section 141(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which outlines the mandatory pre-trial disclosure obligations. The court also had to consider whether the application for re-service of the brief was warranted, given the circumstances of the case.

In delivering its decision, the court found that while the respondent's application for the re-service of the brief was not warranted, the mandatory pre-trial disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 required the Crown to produce an electronic court book. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with these obligations to ensure a fair trial. Consequently, the court made an order for the production of the electronic court book but dismissed the motion for the re-service of the brief.

The court's final orders included a directive for the Crown to produce an electronic court book in accordance with the mandatory pre-trial disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and the motion for the re-service of the brief was dismissed.

Orders