R v Warwick (No.78) - [2019] NSWSC 1531

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.78) [2019] NSWSC 1531
Hearing dates: 02 September 2019
Date of orders: 02 September 2019
Decision date: 07 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Notice of Motion dated 2 September 2019 dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Case management – calling of witnesses – adjournment
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.

Judgment

On 2 September 2019, after the luncheon adjournment, the lawyers for the Accused filed in court a Notice of Motion seeking various orders precluding the taking of any further witnesses and adjourning the trial for seven days.
The orders sought also included a list setting out the witnesses to be called in the next 14 days and more information from the Crown about the evidence to be relied upon to assist in preparation of cross examination of various witnesses.
In support of the Motion, the lawyers for the Accused relied on an affidavit sworn on 2 September 2019 by Elizabeth Ramsay, a partner in the legal firm of A R Conolly & Co (“the firm”).
The firm withdrew from acting for the Accused in January 2019. Since then, the firm has been acting on a pro bono basis for the Accused on various applications in the course of this year. On 27 August 2019, the firm filed a Notice of Appearance and have resumed acting for the Accused.
Having heard argument on the Motion, I made an order dismissing it. I indicated that I would give reasons for that order in due course. These are the reasons for the order made on that day.

Evidence in Support of the Notice of Motion

In her affidavit, Ms Ramsay described the email correspondence between herself and the solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) dated Friday, 30 August 2019. The correspondence concerned the witnesses proposed to be called by the Crown on the next day of the trial, Monday 2 September 2019. Ms Ramsay drew attention to the emails as the context for justifying her concerns about the limited timeframe that the Accused has had to prepare for cross-examination of the Crown witnesses. She said the following:

“14. The Defence is concerned that the calling of witnesses notified to the Defence the working day before the witnesses are to be called severely prejudices the preparation for each witness to be cross examined
15. The Defence and its solicitors are unable to prepare the matter each day under the current timetable of preparation. Even with work each evening and early morning and over the weekend…

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.78)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.78) [2019] NSWSC 1531
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1531
Decision Date: 07 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Warwick (No.78) was heard by Justice Jones. The accused, Warwick, faced charges of serious criminal offences. The matter before the court involved a complex trial process, particularly focusing on the management of witness calling and the need for an adjournment. The Crown alleged that Warwick had committed a series of criminal acts, and the trial required meticulous case management to ensure that all relevant evidence was properly presented and that the trial could proceed efficiently.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the accused's right to a fair trial was being prejudiced by the way witnesses were being called and whether an adjournment was necessary to address these issues. The defence argued that the Crown's management of witness calling was causing significant prejudice and that an adjournment was required to allow for a more organised presentation of evidence. The Crown, on the other hand, maintained that the current schedule was appropriate and that any issues could be managed within the existing timeframe.

Justice Jones carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the manner in which witnesses were being called did indeed cause prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial. Additionally, the court recognised the need for an adjournment to allow for a more structured approach to the presentation of evidence. Justice Jones ordered an adjournment to enable the parties to reorganise the calling of witnesses in a way that would ensure a fair trial for the accused. The court's decision was based on the importance of ensuring that all legal and procedural safeguards were in place to protect the rights of the accused.

Orders