R v Warwick (No.90) [2020] NSWSC 70

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.90) [2020] NSWSC 70 Hearing dates: 10 February 2020 Date of orders: 10 February 2020 Decision date: 10 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: Tender of the report of Dr Jools dated 8 February 2020 is rejected. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – expert evidence – admissibility of expert report - whether inference can be drawn from expert report as to capacity of Accused – no relevant context in report to support inference – inference not within requested remit of expert report – tender of expert report rejected. Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 R v Warwick (No.83) [2019] NSWSC 1757 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 / 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. Suppression orders in relation to identification of particular witnesses.

EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.9244)

Proposed Exhibit 1. The Accused has sought to tender the report of Dr Penelope Jools, dated 8 February 2020, as an expert report. Leave is required to call the expert evidence because the report of Dr Jools was served only today, which is outside the time limited by order of this Court for the service of expert reports. As will become apparent, it is unnecessary to consider whether the late service of this report is a relevant cause for the decision which the Court has reached. 2. The Crown objects to the admission of the report and the grant of leave to adduce the expert evidence of Dr Jools, principally upon the ground of relevance. A little background is necessary.