R v Warwick (No.46) [2018] NSWSC 1335

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.46) [2018] NSWSC 1335 Hearing dates: 27 August 2018 Date of orders: 27 August 2018 Decision date: 27 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: (1) Except for the results of two specified tests and the opinion expressed by Mr Goetz in the last sentence of the draft report, the document is admitted unconditionally and marked Exh 95.

(2) Insofar as Exh 95 records the results of testing which Mr Goetz did not undertake and the opinion which he then expressed, the document will be admitted provisionally, depending upon findings to be made in the future about those test results and that opinion. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility of reports and worksheets recording results of blood tests – reports relevant – documents admitted unconditionally – results of two tests and opinion expressed admitted provisionally – Evidence Act 1995, s 57 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.2105)

The Proposed Exhibit 1. The Crown has tendered a bundle of documents, which consists of part of a bundle which was formerly part of MFI XX, the first and last documents in MFI XX having been removed. The bundle contains the records of the Division of Forensic Medicine ("DFM") concerning blood tests. 2. In the bundle were the results of two tests which Mr Goetz did not himself conduct – the adenylate kinase ("AK") and adenosine deaminase ("ADA") tests. As well, there was an opinion expressed in the document entitled "Draft Report" by Mr Goetz. The Crown tendered those parts of the bundle provisionally pursuant to s 57 of the Evidence Act 1995, because those parts depended upon the Court making other findings of fact.