Legal Research
Cases
R v Warwick (No.80)

R v Warwick (No.80)

Case [2020] NSWSC 115 24 February 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.80) [2020] NSWSC 115
Hearing dates: 11 November 2019, 12 November 2019, 13 November 2019, 14 November 2019 18 November 2019
Date of orders: 21 November 2019
Decision date: 24 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Application for the entry of verdicts of not guilty on the basis that the Accused has no case to answer is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trial - Judge alone – no case to answer submission - whether the evidence taken at its highest could satisfy a fact finding tribunal beyond reasonable doubt – circumstantial case - application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2001] NSWCA 32; (2001) 122 A Crim R 166
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; (1996) 186 CLR 541
Chamberlain v The Queen [No.2] [1984] HCA 7; (1984) 153 CLR 521
Cox v Salt (1994) 12 WAR 12
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No.1 of 2017 [2019] HCA 9; (2019) 93 ALJR 424
Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207
May v O’Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; (1955) 92 CLR 654
Peacock v The King [1911] HCA 66; (1911) 13 CLR 619
Plomp v The Queen [1963] HCA 44; (1963) 110 CLR 234
R v Barker (1977) 65 Cr App R 287
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v Le; R v Loeung [2019] NSWSC 632
R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161; (1979) 2 A Crim R 45
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74; (1989) 44 A Crim R 404
R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225
R v Warwick (No.21) [2018] NSWSC 654
R v Warwick (No.48) [2018] NSWSC 1557
R v Warwick (No.49) [2018] NSWSC 1557
R v Warwick (No.55) [2018] NSWSC 2011
R v Warwick (No.62) [2018] NSWSC 2028
The Queen v A2; The Queen v Magennis; The Queen v Vaziri [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 93 ALJR 1106
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308
The Queen v Edwards [2009] HCA 20; (2009) 83 ALJR 717
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 / 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

This is a trial without a jury on an Indictment, first presented by the Crown on 3 March 2017, against the Accused, Leonard John Warwick, which contains 24 counts arising from…

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.80)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.80) [2020] NSWSC 115
Case: [2020] NSWSC 115
Decision Date: 24 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Warwick, the defendant faced trial before a judge alone in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the defendant's involvement in a series of drug-related offences. The prosecution alleged that Warwick had been involved in the possession and supply of prohibited substances, with evidence presented in a largely circumstantial form.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the evidence, when considered at its highest, was sufficient to satisfy a fact-finding tribunal beyond reasonable doubt. The defence argued that there was no case to answer, submitting that the prosecution had failed to establish the defendant's guilt to the requisite standard. This required the court to assess the strength and reliability of the circumstantial evidence presented against Warwick.

The court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was capable of supporting a conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the offences charged. The judge determined that the prosecution had presented a coherent narrative that, while circumstantial, was strong enough to meet the beyond reasonable doubt threshold. The court found that each piece of evidence, when considered alongside the others, provided sufficient links to establish Warwick's involvement in the alleged drug activities. Consequently, the application for the judge to determine that no case was to be answered was dismissed.

Orders