Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.70) [2019] NSWSC 1529 Hearing dates: 9 September 2019 Date of orders: 09 September 2019 Decision date: 09 September 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: Document admitted and marked Exh 464 Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Evidence to establish that a person may have access to knowledge about the existence of publications from which techniques involving explosives could be found – balancing exercise in s137 Evidence Act 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) I Benson (Accused) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) A R Conolly & Co File Number(s): 2015/222068 Publication restriction: Suppression order in relation to the names of the Accused's wife and daughter: see R v Warwick (No.7) [2018] NSWSC 236. EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.6613) Proposed Exhibit 1. The Crown seeks to tender a catalogue of publications sold by a publisher called Paladin Press which was, at the relevant time, located in the United States of America, in Boulder, Colorado (the "Catalogue"). 2. The Catalogue is entitled "Volume 13, No. 6". The contents of it, in particular, a "special holiday offer" for Paladin readers, which expired on 1 January 1984, makes plain that the Catalogue was published prior to that date, and at some time during 1983. 3. The Catalogue provides information about the placing of orders from outside the USA. It provides instructions as to how that can be done by mail. As well, it provides information as to how orders can be placed by telephoning the publisher and placing orders on the basis that payment is made over the telephone by credit card. Relevance 1. The Crown's case is that the evidence of Mr Owen Muhn (T.6523) established the fact that the existence of Paladin Press (and the contents of at least one of the Press' books on topics including firearms, explosives and suppressors) was known to the Accused. 2. The Crown tendered the 1983 Catalogue on the basis that it establishes the existence of a range of publications that were available to be purchased and read at the relevant times. As well, the Crown contends that the Catalogue can go towards establishing an unrestricted means of the availability of knowledge about Paladin's publications to anyone who might be interested. In particular, the Crown submits that the Catalogue disclosed the way in which orders for such overseas publications could be readily made. Objections of the Accused 1. The lawyers for the Accused objected to the tender of the document on the basis that it has not been established that the Accused ever bought any publication from Paladin Press, or was ever in possession of any Paladin Press publication. That submission correctly summarises the state of the evidence at the moment. 2. Accordingly, the Accused submits that the Catalogue cannot be relevant to any issue in the proceedings. Discernment 1. However, the evidence of Mr Muhn is, if accepted, capable of establishing that the Accused was familiar with Paladin Press and the nature of at least one of the publications which that publisher distributed. 2. In my view, the document is relevant to establish that a person, such as the Accused, may have had access to knowledge about the existence of publications from which knowledge about explosives and firearms, including techniques involved in the detonation of explosives, could be found. 3. The Accused's lawyers submitted that even if the document were relevant, it ought be excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because any probative value would be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the Accused. No specific unfair prejudice was identified. 4. In my view, whilst it might be thought that the document has only a low level of probative value, I am unable to see that there is any danger of unfair prejudice to the Accused, let alone of a kind which would outweigh that albeit, low level of, probative value. In my view, s 137 of the Evidence Act has no application so as to prevent the document being admitted. Order 1. In my view, the document is admissible as part of the Crown case. It will be admitted and marked Exh 464. ********** 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: 05 November 2019