R v Warwick (No.71) - [2019] NSWSC 1241

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.71) [2019] NSWSC 1241
Hearing dates: 09 September 2019
Date of orders: 09 September 2019
Decision date: 09 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) The evidence is relevant and admissible and I will admit the bundle of photos and photocopies taken by this witness as Exh 461.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Whether evidence to establish that a person may have access to knowledge about explosives is admissible – relevance
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)
I Benson (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co

File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Suppression order in relation to the names of the Accused’s wife and daughter: see R v Warwick (No.7) [2018] NSWSC 236.

EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.6601)

A Book is Found but not Seized

In the course of a search conducted at the premises of the Accused at 25 Tallowood Avenue, Casula, on 31 July 1984, a book was identified on the bookshelf.
The book was entitled "Practical Coalmining", (the “book”). A photograph of the book reveals that the author can be seen to be George L Kerr, and the publisher to be Charles Griffin & Co Limited. The book itself was not seized. There is no evidence of any observation made in July 1984 as to the contents of the book or which edition the book was.

What were the Contents of the Book?

In 2015, in the course of more recent investigations, Detective Senior Constable Staples of the Unsolved Homicide Squad, undertook a series of enquiries intending to establish the content of the book. Her enquiries revealed that the 5th Edition was published in 1914. The book is described, on its cover sheet, as "A Manual for Managers, Under-Managers, Colliery Engineers and others".
The 5th Edition is also described as "entirely revised, reset throughout and enlarged". The 5th Edition comprises 778 pages.
The evidence of DSC Staples is that her enquiries demonstrate that the 5th Edition differed from the Edition produced in 1900, but was largely the same as the Edition produced in 1905.
It is clear that the external appearance of the 5th Edition is very similar to the photograph of the book taken during the course of the search in July 1984.
The 5th Edition of the book also reproduces the preface to the 1st Edition, which was written by the author in 1900.
Chapter 4 of the 5th Edition, (occupying pages 101 to 119) is entitled "Explosives" and contains explanatory material regarding the nature of available explosives and the nature of detonators, including different fuses available to be used. The chapter describes how detonators are fixed, how charges are fired and the existence, type and nature of safety fuses. It also includes a description of how one…

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.71)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.71) [2019] NSWSC 1241
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1241
Decision Date: 09 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Warwick (No.71), the defendant was charged with possession of a destructive device. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence that the defendant had access to knowledge about explosives. The evidence was intended to establish that the defendant had the means and ability to construct the device. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of access to knowledge about explosives was relevant and whether it could be used to establish the defendant's guilt. The court considered whether the evidence was necessary to prove an essential element of the offence and whether it had sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant.

The court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible. It found that the evidence was necessary to prove the defendant's ability to construct the device and that it had sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudicial effect. The court held that the evidence was relevant to establish the defendant's knowledge and ability to construct the device, which was an essential element of the offence. The court also found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant. The court held that the evidence was necessary to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court ordered that the evidence be admitted and that the defendant be found guilty of the offence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's knowledge and ability to construct the device and that it was necessary to prove the essential element of the offence. The court found that the evidence had sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant. The court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible and that it was necessary to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders