Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.44) [2018] NSWSC 1295 Hearing dates: 17 August 2018 Date of orders: 17 August 2018 Decision date: 17 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: 1. Running Sheet dated 1 August 1985 is admitted and marked Exh 79. 2. Pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995, I limit the use of the material in the second and third paragraphs on page 3, so that the statement of Mr Robert Barnes and Mr J Gothard are not to be taken as evidence of the truth of their contents. 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.1791) 1. The Crown tenders a five page Running Sheet written by the present witness, Mr Jesse Sheather, on 1 August 1985, entitled: "Post Blast Analysis of Jehovahs Witness Kingdom Hall, Verbena Avenue, Casula". 1. The Accused objects to its admission into evidence on the basis that the document amounts to hearsay evidence, including opinions expressed by other people. The Proposed Exhibit 1. The document is a contemporaneous account of the investigation undertaken by Mr Sheather and members of the Ballistics Unit at the Kingdom Hall. Reference was made in the document to investigations also undertaken by scientists asked to assist. As well, it refers to the post-mortem examination undertaken on the body of the late Graham Wykes. Relevance 1. The Crown tenders the document pursuant to s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 as being evidence relevant for another, non-hearsay purpose. That purpose was identified as being to indicate the nature and extent of the investigations being undertaken, and the results which were being received and reported. 2. The adequacy of the investigation of the Kingdom Hall is an issue in the proceedings. The exhibit, if admitted, would support the purpose identified, which is a relevant purpose. 3. In my view, the Running Sheet is relevant to the issues in the proceedings in that it documents a summary of what occurred within a period of ten days or so following the explosion at the Kingdom Hall, as well as the methodology used by the Ballistics Unit to undertake its investigation, the engagement of identified experts and the role which those identified experts played. 4. It is relevant to address the issue raised by the Accused, being that the investigation which was undertaken was an inadequate one. Discernment 1. The proposed exhibit has been demonstrated to be relevant for a non-hearsay purpose. Accordingly, the fact that the document and some of its contents constitutes hearsay evidence, does not preclude its admissibility. 2. Accordingly, the document ought to be admitted. Limitation on Use 1. Although no direct reference was made by the solicitor for the Accused to the provisions of s 136 of the Evidence Act, or any limitation on the use of this document, it seems appropriate, having regard to the tenor of the Accused's submissions on admissibility, that the contents of the second and third paragraphs on page 3, ought be subject to a limitation on their use, namely that the contents of those paragraphs are not evidence of the truth of the statements in them which are attributed to Mr Robert Barnes, or Mr J Gothard in the document. ****** Amendments 27 August 2018 - Typographical error [8] 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