R v Warwick (No.92) - [2020] NSWSC 78

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.92) [2020] NSWSC 78
Hearing dates: ON THE PAPERS
Date of orders: 14 February 2020
Decision date: 14 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Suppression order made on 21 August 2017 with respect to all judgments of the Court up to and including R v Warwick (No.32) [2018] NSW SC1105, except for R v Warwick (No.7) [2018] NSWSC 236 and R v Warwick (No.19) [2018] NSWSC 655 is revoked.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – suppression order - suppression order no longer necessary – revoked – no point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010

Cases Cited:
R v Warwick [2017] NSW SC 1151
R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225
R v Warwick (No.7) [2018] NSWSC 236
R v Warwick (No.8) [2018] NSWSC 304.
R v Warwick (No.19) [2018] NSWSC 655
R v Warwick (No.32) [2018] NSW SC1105

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 (Accused)

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.
Suppression order regarding name of Offender's wife and daughter revoked by direction of Garling J on 20.8.2020.
Suppression order relating to identification of particular witness remains in place.

Judgment

The Accused, Leonard John Warwick, was first arraigned in this court on 3 March 2017 upon an Indictment which contained 24 counts. To each of these counts the Accused pleaded not guilty. At that time, the trial was fixed to commence in February 2018 before a Jury.

The Court Makes a Suppression Order

On 21 August 2017, the Court heard pre-trial argument on two questions: whether the Crown ought be entitled to rely upon tendency and coincidence notices, and whether the counts on the Indictment ought be separated so that those counts which related to each of the seven separate Events of criminality would be heard at separate trials.
At the commencement of that argument, the Accused sought a suppression order on all aspects of pre-trial proceedings including the contents of any judgments delivered by the Court so that any details which emerged in pre‑trial proceedings or the judgments would not be published. The order was sought so as to avoid any potential impact upon the fairness of the trial which was to be conducted, at that time, before a jury.
The application was not opposed by the Crown and suppression orders pursuant to the CourtSuppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (“the Act”) were made: see R v Warwick [2017] NSWSC 1151. The orders were expressed to continue until the jury returned with a verdict, or else…

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.92)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.92) [2020] NSWSC 78
Case: [2020] NSWSC 78
Decision Date: 14 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a suppression order placed on the publication of certain information related to the criminal proceedings against the defendant, Warwick. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the suppression order, initially imposed to prevent prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial, was still necessary or if it should be revoked.

The court considered the purpose of suppression orders, which is to protect the integrity of the judicial process. However, it examined the current circumstances, including the completion of the trial and the public's right to be informed. The court determined that the suppression order was no longer necessary, as the risk of prejudice had dissipated with the conclusion of the trial. It found no point of principle that would necessitate the continued existence of the order.

Consequently, the High Court revoked the suppression order, allowing the publication of the previously suppressed information. The decision was based on the principle that once the trial had concluded, the interests of justice were better served by transparency and the public's right to know. The court did not identify any overriding public interest that would justify maintaining the suppression order.

Orders