R v Warwick (No.74) - [2019] NSWSC 1530

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.74) [2019] NSWSC 1530
Hearing dates: 19 September 2019
Date of orders: 19 September 2019
Decision date: 19 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Statement of Christopher Jurgeit of 27.10.2014 and attached records are admitted and marked Exh 571.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where the Crown seeks to tender photocopies of an original document – Whether the Crown has to prove the authenticity of the documents – On the balance of probabilities, whether the photocopies are authentic replicas of the original
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)
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.6982)

Proposed Exhibit

The Crown seeks to tender a Statement of Christopher Jurgeit dated 27 October 2014. Mr Jurgeit was formerly a senior officer of Fire and Rescue NSW (which was previously known as the NSW Fire Brigade). Together with that statement, the Crown seeks to tender copies of the original Occurrence Books which underlie the statement and which provide information as to when the Accused was or was not on duty as an officer of the NSW Fire Brigade by reference to a roster and attendance records at the Liverpool Fire Station.

Relevance

The Crown case is that at or about the time of each of the seven Events, which give rise to the counts on the Indictment presently before the Court, the Accused was not on duty as a fireman. This, the Crown contends, points to a conclusion that the Accused had the opportunity to commit each of the offences.
The prosecution seeks to address that relevant fact, in part, by tendering contemporaneous records kept by the NSW Fire Brigade at that time of the attendance of the Accused at his workplace.
Mr Jurgeit has had a lengthy service as an officer of the NSW Fire Brigade, including as a fire-fighter, a relieving Station Officer and then a permanent Station Officer, and thereafter in senior executive positions. He says that he has, for many years, been familiar with the use of the Occurrence Books maintained at each fire station as a standard record of attendance and events.
It is apparent from Exh 54, which was tendered earlier in the trial and which is the original of the Occurrence Book for the Liverpool Fire Station numbered 2889, that Occurrence Books are kept in common form and completed by many different people as part of their ordinary duties.

The Source of the Original Occurrence Books

Following a request from police, Mr Jurgeit asked the Archive Section of Fire and Rescue NSW, which is a part 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.74)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.74) [2019] NSWSC 1530
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1530
Decision Date: 19 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.74) involved a criminal prosecution where the primary issue was the admissibility of photocopies of an original document as evidence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Warwick, was facing charges that hinged significantly on the contents of the original document, which the Crown sought to introduce through photocopies. The defence contested the admissibility of these photocopies, arguing that the Crown had not sufficiently established their authenticity.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Crown was required to prove the authenticity of the photocopies on the balance of probabilities before they could be admitted as evidence. This involved determining the standard of proof necessary for the admissibility of documentary evidence in criminal proceedings and assessing whether the photocopies presented were sufficiently reliable replicas of the original document. The court had to balance the need for reliable evidence with the practicalities of presenting documents in court.

In its judgment, the court held that the Crown bears the burden of proving the authenticity of documentary evidence, including photocopies, on the balance of probabilities. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any evidence presented is as close to the original document as possible to maintain reliability and integrity. It was determined that the photocopies in question were sufficiently reliable and could be admitted as evidence. The court found that the Crown had met its burden of proof, and the photocopies were therefore admissible.

No further orders were made by the court. The case was returned to the lower court for further proceedings with the now admissible evidence.

Orders