Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1836 Hearing dates: 23 August 2017 Date of orders: 23 August 2017 Decision date: 23 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: See [4], [5], [7], [8], [11], [13] Catchwords: Evidence – rulings – no question of principle 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) R Thomas (Accused) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Havas & Dib (Accused) File Number(s): 2015/222068 Publication restriction: Not to be published until after return of verdict by Jury or further order of the Court. Non-publication order lifted on 14 February 2020. EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. This judgment contains the following ex tempore rulings made on 23 August 2017: With respect to the reports of Ms Edmonds: 1. In my view both reports prepared by Mrs Edmonds, that is to say the Family Report of 16 November 1979, and the Family Report of 17 April 1980, are admissible in their entirety for the purposes outlined in Exhibit PT13, paragraph 7. 2. Once admitted on that basis there is no reason to restrict the use to which the contents of the reports may be put. 3. I am not satisfied that the admission of these documents provides any unfair prejudice to the accused. In part that is because in the Family Court proceedings it was, as I understand the procedure at the time, open to the accused to put facts before the court by affidavit contesting any version of fact contained in the Family Report. With respect to the statement of Leslie Blanchard: 1. With respect to the statement of Leslie Blanchard, in my view the material which the Crown seeks to adduce is admissible save and except for any representation contained in the statement commencing in the final paragraph, second last sentence, with the words "He commenced to argue with Andrea" until the end of the statement. With respect to the statement of Thomas Geier dated 21/07/1985 1. Mr Thomas takes objection to the third and fourth paragraphs on page 4 of the statement of Thomas Geier dated 21 July 1985 - they are otherwise the 11th and 12th paragraphs of the statement. 2. The Crown indicates that it does not propose to tender the contents of those two paragraphs. In my view they would in any event, as things presently, stand be inadmissible. With respect to statement of David Shaw 1. The statement of Mr David Shaw in respect of the representations which the Crown outlines in paragraph 33 of the exhibit PT13 is, in my view, admissible. 2. I am not satisfied that there is any unfair prejudice which arises with respect to the accused from the admission of those representations and those facts into evidence. With respect to the objection to evidence of Detective Sergeant Worsley 1. Objection is taken to the transcripts of the evidence of Detective Sergeant Worsley, in particular on page 822 commencing about three quarters of the way down the page with the question "You did on the other hand find two rolls of toilet paper", down to a question and answer on the next page, 823, commencing with the words "Well you see, I'm suggesting to you that you used the finding of toilet paper". 2. The Crown does not press that part of the transcript between those two questions and answers. I reject it. With respect to the admissibility of part of the coronial evidence of Detective Sergeant Richard Gersbach 1. Objection is taken to the contents of part of the coronial evidence given in April 1986 by Detective Sergeant Richard Gersbach. The part to which objection is taken in the transcript is from and including the whole of page 196 through to the conclusion of the transcript at page 203. 2. The Crown does not now press the contents of that transcript. I reject it as part of the evidence which is to be adduced in respect of Detective Sergeant Gersbach. ********** Amendments 18 February 2020 - Non-publication order lifted on 14 February 2020. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 18 February 2020