R v Warwick (No.30) [2018] NSWSC 1051

R v Warwick (No.30) [2018] NSWSC 1051

The Court dismissed the June Adjournment Application because the Accused did not establish inadequate disclosure requiring adjournment, non-compliance with s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, prejudice from the amended witness order, or that the absence of expert reports required postponing the whole trial. Any expert-related delay could be managed during the trial, and any remaining police material should be sought by subpoena if a legitimate forensic purpose existed. The Court was not satisfied that an adjournment was in the interests of justice or necessary to prevent any likelihood of an unfair trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Application for Adjournment of Trial / Third Application by the Accused for a Further Adjournment of the Criminal Trial, by Amended Notice of Motion Filed in Court on 3 July 2018
Outcome
June Adjournment Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Criminal Trial' 'prosecution Disclosure' 'police Disclosure' 'expert Evidence' 'continuity of Exhibits' 'order of Witnesses' 'fair Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['adjournment of Criminal Trial' 'prosecution Disclosure' 'police Disclosure' 'expert Evidence' 'continuity of Exhibits' 'order of Witnesses' 'fair Trial']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings; Application for Adjournment of Trial / Third Application by the Accused for a Further Adjournment of the Criminal Trial, by Amended Notice of Motion Filed in Court on 3 July 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial listed to commence on 9 July 2018 should be adjourned and not listed before 18 September 2018.' 'Whether alleged failures by the DPP and NSW Police to disclose notebooks, duty books, primary documents, expert materials and continuity documents justified an adjournment.' 'Whether alleged non-compliance with s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 justified an adjournment.' 'Whether the amended order of Crown witnesses caused prejudice requiring an adjournment.' 'Whether an adjournment was necessary in the interests of justice or to prevent a likelihood of an unfair trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the June Adjournment Application because the Accused did not establish inadequate disclosure requiring adjournment, non-compliance with s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, prejudice from the amended witness order, or that the absence of expert reports required postponing the whole trial. Any expert-related delay could be managed during the trial, and any remaining police material should be sought by subpoena if a legitimate forensic purpose existed. The Court was not satisfied that an adjournment was in the interests of justice or necessary to prevent any likelihood of an unfair trial.

Court Disposition

June Adjournment Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Amended Notice of Motion filed in Court on 3 July 2018 by the Accused, which has been referred to as the 'June Adjournment Application', is dismissed." 'In light of the time occupied this week for the hearing of the unsuccessful June Adjournment motion, the hearing of evidence in the trial is to commence at...