R v Warwick (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1836

R v Warwick (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1836

The Court ruled on the admissibility of the specified evidence. The Edmonds reports and the identified David Shaw representations were admitted because the Court found them admissible and was not satisfied that their admission caused unfair prejudice to the accused. The Leslie Blanchard statement was admitted except for the specified final portion. The objected Thomas Geier paragraphs were not tendered by the Crown and were regarded as inadmissible as matters then stood. Portions of the Worsley and Gersbach transcripts not pressed by the Crown were rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Ex Tempore Evidentiary Rulings
Outcome
Evidentiary rulings made; some evidence admitted and specified parts rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Reports' 'admissibility of Witness Statements' 'unfair Prejudice' 'coronial Evidence' 'transcript Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Reports' 'admissibility of Witness Statements' 'unfair Prejudice' 'coronial Evidence' 'transcript Evidence']

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 Proceeding / Ex Tempore Evidentiary Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Family Reports prepared by Mrs Edmonds were admissible in their entirety.' 'Whether parts of the statement of Leslie Blanchard were admissible.' 'Whether the third and fourth paragraphs on page 4 of the statement of Thomas Geier dated 21 July 1985 were admissible.' 'Whether representations in the statement of David Shaw were admissible.' "Whether objected portions of Detective Sergeant Worsley's transcript evidence should be admitted." 'Whether objected portions of the coronial evidence of Detective Sergeant Richard Gersbach should be admitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ruled on the admissibility of the specified evidence. The Edmonds reports and the identified David Shaw representations were admitted because the Court found them admissible and was not satisfied that their admission caused unfair prejudice to the accused. The Leslie Blanchard statement was admitted except for the specified final portion. The objected Thomas Geier paragraphs were not tendered by the Crown and were regarded as inadmissible as matters then stood. Portions of the Worsley and Gersbach transcripts not pressed by the Crown were rejected.

Court Disposition

Evidentiary rulings made; some evidence admitted and specified parts rejected.

Orders

  • ['Both reports prepared by Mrs Edmonds, the Family Report of 16 November 1979 and the Family Report of 17 April 1980, are admissible in their entirety for the purposes outlined in Exhibit PT13, paragraph 7.' 'There is no reason to restrict the use to which the contents of the Edmonds reports may be put once admitted...