R v Warwick (No.84) - [2019] NSWSC 1908

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.84) [2019] NSWSC 1908
Hearing dates: 09 December 2019
Date of orders: 09 December 2019
Decision date: 09 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Application by the Accused for adjournment of Notices of Motion dated 7 November 2019 and 25 November 2019 is refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – application by the accused for adjournment of two Notices of Motion by NSW Commissioner of Police – whether subpoenas objected to have a legitimate forensic purpose - not satisfied that adjournment of Notices of Motion is justified - application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017 [2019] HCA 9
Prasad v R [1994] HCA 2; (1994) 68 ALJR 194
R v Warwick (No.12) [2018] NSWSC 522
The Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564
Waind v Hill [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
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)
P Singleton (Commissioner of Police NSW)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co (Accused)
State Crown Solicitor’s Office (Commissioner of Police NSW)

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. Suppression orders in relation to identification of particular witnesses.

EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.8389)

Application

Application is made by the Accused for the adjournment of the hearing of two Notices of Motion.
The Notices of Motion are those filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force. The first Motion was filed on 7 November 2019 and the second on 25 November 2019.
The hearing of the Motions commenced on 26 November 2019. The hearing was adjourned at the end of that day in circumstances where the Accused had made arrangements to call a number of expert witnesses on specific dates during the week to give evidence as part of his answer to the Crown case.
The resumed hearing of these two Notices of Motion is due to commence today.

Notices of Motion

The first Notice of Motion sought an order that the subpoena issued by the Accused, addressed to the Commissioner of Police on Monday, 4 November 2019, be set aside. The second Motion sought a similar order with respect to a subpoena which had been issued on Friday, 15 November 2019.
The Commissioner, in a short written outline of submissions dated Monday, 25 November 2019, noted that it was not apparent on the face of either of the subpoenas that the documents that were sought existed or might exist. The Commissioner further noted that there was no identification of any legitimate forensic purpose for the seeking of the documents which were identified.
The nature of the subpoena was noted as…

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.84)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.84) [2019] NSWSC 1908
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1908
Decision Date: 09 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.84) involved the accused applying for an adjournment of two Notices of Motion by the New South Wales Commissioner of Police. The application was made in the context of a criminal trial, where the accused sought to delay the proceedings on the basis of objections to specific subpoenas. The dispute centred on whether these subpoenas had a legitimate forensic purpose and, consequently, whether the adjournment of the Notices of Motion was warranted.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility and relevance of the evidence sought through the subpoenas, and the potential impact of an adjournment on the fairness and efficiency of the trial process. The court needed to determine whether the accused's objections to the subpoenas were justified and whether these objections were sufficient grounds for an adjournment.

The court found that the subpoenas in question did indeed have a legitimate forensic purpose and were relevant to the matters being adjudicated. The court further determined that the objections raised by the accused did not sufficiently justify an adjournment of the Notices of Motion. Consequently, the application for adjournment was dismissed. The reasoning was based on the need to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the trial process, ensuring that all relevant evidence was considered in a timely manner.

Orders