R v Warwick (No.48) [2019] NSWSC 206

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.48) [2019] NSWSC 206 Hearing dates: 13 September 2018, 14 September 2018 Date of orders: 17 September 2018 Decision date: 06 March 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: The document being a photocopy of the three pages of a notebook seized from the Accused's house at Casula will be admitted as an exhibit and marked Exh 167 Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility of a single photocopy document collating three notebook pages – whether the document is relevant to the proceedings - whether a single page photocopy document of three separate original documents is a copy document within the meaning of s 48 of the Evidence Act – whether the original document were seized lawfully – whether the provisions of s 138 of the Evidence Act permit the admission of the document because the desirability of admitting that evidence outweighs the undesirability of not admitting the evidence Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Interpretation Act 1987 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

Judgment (T.2901) 1. On 13 and 14 September 2018, the Court took evidence on the voir dire from the former Detective Senior Constable Matthews about the seizing of three pages of a notebook upon which there was handwriting. It also heard submissions from the Crown and the Accused about the admissibility of a single page photocopy of the three original pages. 2. On Monday 17 September 2018, the Court having decided that the Crown had persuaded it that the document ought to be admitted, made an order to that effect. It indicated the principal conclusions which led to that result, and informed the parties that detailed reasons would be provided in due course. 3. These are those reasons.