R v Warwick (No.59)

Case [2018] NSWSC 1825

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.59) [2018] NSWSC 1825
Hearing dates: 23 November 2018
Date of orders: 23 November 2018
Decision date: 23 November 2018
Jurisdiction:Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:

Running sheet at page 2542 of Crown E-brief admitted and marked Exh 291.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – relevance – police running sheet – no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
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)
A R Conolly / E Ramsay (Accused)

  Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co (Accused)
File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.5112)

  1. At T.5021 in cross-examination the witness, former Detective Sergeant Lyndon Russell Reid, was asked questions about a running sheet which became Exh 276. That running sheet related to a statement being obtained from Colin James Young.

  2. The witness was cross-examined about the contents of that statement, and in particular statements made by Mr Mark Munro who was said to be a close friend of the deceased, Stephen Blanchard, to suggest that there was a conflict in the information available to the investigators between the material provided by the family of the deceased with respect to his habits, and in particular whether he was a user of illicit drugs, and other information that had been obtained in the course of the investigation which suggested to the contrary of it.

  3. In particular, it was suggested to the witness that the contents of the running sheet were such that, as the principal investigating detective, he would wish to know very much more about Mr Munro. The witness agreed that as a part of the investigation, there were people who would have had to be interviewed after the running sheet was submitted.

  4. The document which was tendered in the course of re-examination consists of a single page running sheet dated 29 February 1980, which was compiled by Detective Sergeant Reid. It records an account of interviews conducted with Mr Mark Munro, amongst others, with respect to his knowledge of, and interactions with, the deceased and, in particular, Mr Munro’s knowledge of the activities of the deceased with respect to the use of illicit drugs.

  5. In my view, the document proposed to be tendered addresses questions raised in cross-examination on a topic which was no part of the Crown case in chief. The contents of the proposed exhibit are relevant to the extent of the inquiries undertaken, and the extent to which any inconsistencies in the information obtained by investigating police remained after the interview with Mr Munro.

  6. The document relates directly to the issue of the adequacy of police investigations, a matter which was raised for the first time in cross‑examination. It is therefore admissible. It will be admitted and marked Exh 291.

Orders

  1. I make the following orders:

  1. Running sheet at page 2542 of Crown E-brief admitted and marked Exh 291.

**********

Details
AGLC
R v Warwick (No.59) [2018] NSWSC 1825
Case
[2018] NSWSC 1825
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick (No.59) involved a criminal prosecution against the defendant, Warwick, before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence, specifically a police running sheet, which contained information about the defendant's criminal history. The prosecution argued that the sheet was relevant to prove the defendant's propensity to commit the offence with which he was charged. Warwick, on the other hand, contended that the running sheet was irrelevant and prejudicial, and should not be admitted as evidence.

The court was required to decide whether the police running sheet constituted relevant evidence that could be considered by the jury in determining the defendant's propensity to commit the offence. The primary issue was whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effect. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles established in previous cases regarding the admissibility of prior criminal conduct as evidence of propensity.

The Supreme Court held that the running sheet was indeed relevant evidence, as it demonstrated the defendant's criminal history and could assist the jury in assessing his likelihood of committing the offence. The court found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the jury. In reaching this decision, the court relied on established legal principles that allowed for the consideration of prior criminal conduct as evidence of propensity, provided that the evidence was relevant and not overly prejudicial. The court found no question of principle in admitting the running sheet as evidence.

The final orders of the court were that the police running sheet was admissible as evidence in the trial of Warwick. The jury was permitted to consider the contents of the sheet in determining the defendant's propensity to commit the offence with which he was charged.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.