R v Warwick (No.60) - [2018] NSWSC 1875

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.60) [2018] NSWSC 1875
Hearing dates: 05 December 2018
Date of orders: 05 December 2018
Decision date: 05 December 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) The bundle of documents formerly MFI C-L are admissible and ought be admitted and marked Exh 313.
(2) Order pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 that the exhibit be subject to a limitation on use, namely, that the contents of the documents are not evidence of the truth of the representations contained in them but are evidence of nature and extent of the inquiries made by the NSW Police.
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – relevance – bundle of police running sheets – non-hearsay purpose – relevant for purpose other than as opinion evidence – not excluded pursuant to ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 – evidence admitted subject to a limitation on use
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.5510)

The Proposed Exhibit

In the course of the evidence of Mr Robert Myers, a retired New South Wales Police officer, he was shown and identified a bundle of running sheets relating to various inquiries made by the Homicide Squad, of which he was the officer in charge, following the explosion of a bomb at the Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witness Church at Casula on 21 July 1985. The bundle of running sheets were marked MFI C-L.

Relevance

The Crown seeks to tender those running sheets for a purpose which it submits is relevant, namely, to address an issue raised in the proceedings by the Accused as to the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the Police investigation of each of the Events, the subject of the Indictment, but in particular the Kingdom Hall bombing.

Hearsay Material

The Accused opposes the admission of the running sheets on a number of bases. First, the Accused submitted that the running sheets are documents which contain hearsay statements and opinions which, in circumstances where the makers of those statements and the authors of the running sheets are not to be called, would mean that the documents should not be admitted.
In response to that submission, the Crown submitted that the evidence was admissible for another purpose, namely, dealing with the extent and adequacy of Police investigations.
Accordingly, the Crown submitted that so far as the documents contain evidence of facts, s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 would permit their admission, notwithstanding their hearsay content, and insofar as the documents may contain an opinion, s 77 of the Evidence Act would permit the admissibility of the document.
I accept the Crown's submissions that these…

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.60)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.60) [2018] NSWSC 1875
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1875
Decision Date: 05 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Warwick (No.60), the defendant, Warwick, was charged with possessing dangerous drugs. The dispute centred around the admissibility of a bundle of police running sheets, which were to be used as evidence in the case. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether the running sheets could be admitted as evidence, considering their hearsay nature, and if they could serve a purpose other than as opinion evidence.

The court examined whether the running sheets were relevant for a purpose other than as opinion evidence, as provided for in sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995. The prosecution argued that the running sheets were relevant to show the police's state of mind at the time of the defendant's arrest and were not excluded by the hearsay rule. The court found that the running sheets were relevant for a purpose other than as opinion evidence, as they could be used to establish the existence of a fact in issue, which was the defendant's possession of dangerous drugs. Consequently, the evidence was admitted subject to a limitation on its use.

The court held that the bundle of police running sheets could be admitted as evidence, but their use was limited to establishing the existence of a fact in issue, and not as opinion evidence. This decision provided guidance on the admissibility of police running sheets in criminal cases and the importance of considering the relevance of such evidence for purposes other than as opinion evidence. The final orders of the court were to admit the evidence subject to the limitation on its use, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Orders