Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.43) [2018] NSWSC 1293 Hearing dates: 17 August 2018 Date of orders: 17 August 2018 Decision date: 17 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: The paper evidence bag is admitted and marked as Exh 75. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility of paper evidence bag – 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) 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.1785) 1. The Crown tenders the original paper bag into which cardboard was placed at the scene of the Kingdom Hall bombing. 2. The Accused objects to the tender of the proposed exhibit. Proposed Exhibit 1. The current witness, Mr Jesse Sheather, has identified the item tendered as the original paper bag used at the scene of the Kingdom Hall. The witness has identified that the bag bears his writing and has given evidence that this bag was used to convey the cardboard that he recovered from the Kingdom Hall at Casula on 22 July 1985, the day after the bombing on 21 July 1985. 2. The words written on the bag are "Blood stain cardboard from s/east corner". They are in Mr Sheather's handwriting. These words are consistent with his evidence about the purpose for which the bag was used. Relevance 1. The item of cardboard is a relevant piece of evidence in the Crown case, because the Crown alleges that DNA of the Accused is contained in bloodstains found on the cardboard. The Accused challenges the integrity of the retention of the cardboard and hence the integrity of the DNA result. 2. The bag in which that piece of cardboard was kept is of relevance to that issue. Submissions of Accused 1. The Accused submitted that the bag being tendered and the words on it are inconsistent with what one would expect an experienced police officer to use, or to place on such a bag at a murder scene. I take that to be a reference to the words written by this witness on that bag. Discernment 1. Even assuming such a statement to be correct, even though no evidence supports it, in light of the evidence which has been given, there is no basis to find that the item has not been adequately identified. The witness has said that these are the words which he wrote on the bag. Whether or not looked at from a later date those words were appropriate to have been written, or otherwise suffered any deficiency as to their content is not a matter which, in my view, relates in any way to the admissibility of the item. 2. As well, Exh 72, a photograph of the paper bag, has already been admitted into evidence in circumstances where the Court was satisfied that it was relevant. Conclusion 1. In my view, the item is relevant and admissible. It will be admitted and marked as Exh 75. ****** Amendments 31 August 2018 - Addition of transcript reference. 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: 31 August 2018