R v Warwick (No.57) [2018] NSWSC 2018

R v Warwick (No.57) [2018] NSWSC 2018

The running sheet was relevant and admissible because it was a contemporaneous record made by Mr Woods on 30 July 1985 of the finding, contents, seizure, handling and intended inquiries concerning the handwritten notes, and it corroborated evidence from Mr Woods and Mr Matthews. The absence of the notes and photocopies formerly attached did not make the running sheet incomplete, as it was complete on its face and the original notes had been entered into an Exhibit Repository. No identified use of the document would be unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing, so no limitation under s 136 was warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Evidence Ruling / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Document During Proceedings
Outcome
The objection was rejected; the document MFI OOOO was admitted as Exh 264 without any limitation on use under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'police Running Sheet' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 S 136']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'police Running Sheet' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 S 136']

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 Evidence Ruling / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Document During Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the police running sheet dated 30 July 1985 should be admitted despite the absence of attachments referred to in it.' 'Whether any limitation should be imposed on the use of the running sheet under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The running sheet was relevant and admissible because it was a contemporaneous record made by Mr Woods on 30 July 1985 of the finding, contents, seizure, handling and intended inquiries concerning the handwritten notes, and it corroborated evidence from Mr Woods and Mr Matthews. The absence of the notes and photocopies formerly attached did not make the running sheet incomplete, as it was complete on its face and the original notes had been entered into an Exhibit Repository. No identified use of the document would be unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing, so no limitation under s 136 was warranted.

Court Disposition

The objection was rejected; the document MFI OOOO was admitted as Exh 264 without any limitation on use under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Orders

  • ['The document MFI OOOO is admitted and marked Exh 264.' 'There will be no limitation on use pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act.']