R v Warwick (No.72)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.72) [2019] NSWSC 1254
Hearing dates: 10 September 2019
Date of orders: 10 September 2019
Decision date: 10 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Decline to make Order 1 set out in the Notice of Motion dated 10 September 2019.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – witness evidence – request to delay calling of witness
Legislation Cited: Not Applicable
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)
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.

EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.6668)

The Accused, by Notice of Motion dated today, seeks orders with respect to delaying the times at which the Crown will call three witnesses: Ms Jendy Lake, Mr Alan Fitton and Mr Murray Byrnes.
In light of discussions which have taken place, there is no need for the Court to make any orders with respect to Mr Fitton or Mr Byrnes, and their attendance can be accommodated at a time which is not inconvenient to the Accused.
The remaining witness is Ms Lake, who was at one time the wife of Mr Michael Shoukat Abroo. Mr Abroo was identified by investigating police as a possible suspect for some of the Events, the subject of the present Indictment. It is the Crown's case, that although identified as a possible suspect, Mr Abroo did not carry out any of the bombings or shootings.
Mr Abroo was engaged in Family Law proceedings at or about the time of some of these events with his former wife, Ms Lake. The file of those Family Court proceedings has been tendered and the Crown proposes to adduce Ms Lake's evidence-in-chief by tendering her statement of events and facts from the 1980s.
The submissions for the Accused were to the effect that they had not had sufficient time to properly prepare for Ms Lake’s evidence and would be prejudiced if she was called today.
I am informed that Ms Lake has travelled from interstate to give evidence. She has some significant health difficulties which accompany her attendance today at court.
Notice was given to the Accused on Friday, 6 September 2019, if not earlier, that the Crown proposed to call Ms Lake today and that, if she does not give evidence today, there could be a significant difficulty in finding time when she could either return to give evidence or else be recalled.
In all of those circumstances, I am not prepared to accede to the application made by a Notice of Motion that Ms Lake not be called before Monday, 16 September 2019. Of course, it is open to the lawyers for the Accused, if they identify in due course some particular matter that is not put to Ms Lake that they consider ought be put to her, to make an application for her to be recalled.

Orders

Accordingly, I, decline to make Order 1 set out in the Notice of Motion dated 10 September 2019.

**********

Amendments

05 November 2019 - Addition of suppression order on coversheet

In this case, the defendant Warwick was charged with contravening a weapons licence. The defendant sought to delay calling a witness who was to give evidence of the defendant’s character. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant had a right to call a witness in order to give evidence of his good character and whether the defendant could delay calling such a witness. The court considered whether the defendant had a right to call a witness to give evidence of his good character and whether the defendant could delay calling such a witness.

The court held that the defendant had a right to call a witness to give evidence of his good character, however, the court found that the defendant had no right to delay calling the witness. The court held that the defendant’s right to give evidence of good character was not an absolute right and was subject to the discretion of the court. The court held that the defendant’s right to give evidence of good character was not an absolute right and was subject to the discretion of the court. The court held that the defendant’s right to delay calling the witness was not justified and the witness should be called to give evidence.

The court ordered that the witness should be called to give evidence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Warwick (No.72) [2019] NSWSC 1254
Hearing dates:	10 September 2019
Date of orders:	10 September 2019
Decision date:	10 September 2019
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Garling J
Decision:	Decline to make Order 1 set out in the Notice of Motion dated 10 September 2019.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – witness evidence – request to delay calling of witness
Legislation Cited:	Not Applicable
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) 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.