Legal Research
Cases
R v Warwick (No.93)

R v Warwick (No.93)

Case [2020] NSWSC 926 23 July 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.93) [2020] NSWSC 926
Hearing dates:
2018:
May 15;
July 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 July;
August 1, 2, 3,6, 7, 8, 9, 10; 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31;
September 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28;
October 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 31;
November 1, 2; 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30;
December 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20.

2019:
January 29; 30; 31;
February 1; 18; 19; 20; 21; 28;
March 6; 8; 15;
April 10;
June 14; 21;
July 29;
August 1; 20; 26; 27; 28; 29;
September 2; 3; 4; 5; 9; 10; 11; 12; 16; 17; 18; 19;
October 15, 16; 17; 21; 22; 23; 24; 28; 29; 30; 31.
November 4; 7; 11; 12; 13; 14; 21; 25; 26; 27; 28;
December 2; 3; 4; 5; 9; 10; 11; 12; 16; 17; 18; 19.
2020:
January 20, 21, 22, 23; 28; 29; 30; 31.
February 3; 4; 6; 10; 11; 12; 24;
March 2; 3; 4; 5; 9; 10; 11; 12; 16;17; 18; 19; 20; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 30; 31.
April 1; 2; 3; 6
Date of orders: 23 July 2020
Decision date: 23 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See [2283]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Murder — trial by judge alone – verdicts – complex circumstantial case – Family Court bomber – whether the Accused was the perpetrator - historical charges – 35 to 40 years since acts occurred – grievous bodily harm – shootings and bombings –-coincidence reasoning – tendency evidence – DNA evidence – intermediate fact – convictions entered

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Family Law Act 1974 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
R v Warwick (No.21) [2018] NSWSC 654
R v Warwick (No.69) [2019] NSWSC 1059

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
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: Not Applicable

CONTENTS		Paragraph
INTRODUCTION		[1]
Indictment	[2]
Elements of the Offences	[7]
The Trial – A General Description	[18]
Some Features of this Judgment	[26]
Crown Case Description	[31]
Case for the Accused	[36]
Police Investigation	[38]
Chronology of Arrest, Committal and Trial	[45]
Records of the Police	[49]
Lengthy Period between Events and Trial	[62]
Directions of Law	[68]
Judgment Architecture	[117]
EVENT 7 – KINGDOM HALL BOMBING		[125]
Counts on the Indictment	[126]
Crown Case in Summary	[130]
Accused Case in Summary	[135]

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.93)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.93) [2020] NSWSC 926
Case: [2020] NSWSC 926
Decision Date: 23 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.93) involved the accused, Warwick, who was tried for a series of serious criminal activities, including murder, grievous bodily harm, and bombings, which occurred over a span of approximately 35 to 40 years ago. The case was heard by a judge alone, with the accused contesting the allegations. The trial was particularly complex, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence due to the significant time elapsed since the crimes were committed. The accused was notably identified as the perpetrator of several high-profile acts, including bombings and shootings targeting family members, and was known as the "Family Court bomber."

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the admissibility and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the application of tendency and coincidence reasoning, and the use of historical charges to establish a pattern of criminal behaviour. Additionally, the court examined the role of DNA evidence in corroborating the circumstantial case and the relevance of intermediate facts that linked the accused to the crimes. The court also had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the age of the crimes and the challenges in gathering direct evidence.

The court, in its reasoning, found that the circumstantial evidence, when combined with historical charges and DNA evidence, was sufficient to establish a clear pattern of criminal behaviour. The court concluded that the coincidences between the crimes and the accused's known activities were too significant to be mere happenstance. The evidence supported the inference that the accused was responsible for the grievous acts committed. Consequently, the court found the accused guilty on multiple counts, including murder and grievous bodily harm, and entered convictions accordingly.

Orders