R v Warwick (No.77) [2019] NSWSC 1564

R v Warwick (No.77) [2019] NSWSC 1564

The motions were dismissed because Exh 658 did not contradict Mrs Opas' evidence, did not identify her as a source for any reasonable alternative hypothesis, and did not engage Browne v Dunn; the requested disclosure concerning documents shown to witnesses was unsupported by evidence that such lists or documents existed or were in the possession of the prosecutor; and the Accused had already cross-examined Detective Russell on the window and access issues, so there was no proper basis to permit a second cross-examination or make the related disclosure order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Procedural Ruling After Close of Crown Case on Notices of Motion Seeking Recall of Witnesses, Disclosure and Related Orders
Outcome
Order 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 30 October 2019 and Orders 1-4 of the Notice of Motion dated 31 October 2019 were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['recall of Witnesses After Close of Crown Case' 'further Cross Examination' 'prosecution Disclosure Obligations' 'browne V Dunn' 'subpoena Material' 're Opening Crown Case' 'limitation on Use of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['recall of Witnesses After Close of Crown Case' 'further Cross Examination' 'prosecution Disclosure Obligations' 'browne V Dunn' 'subpoena Material' 're Opening Crown Case' 'limitation on Use of 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 Trial / Procedural Ruling After Close of Crown Case on Notices of Motion Seeking Recall of Witnesses, Disclosure and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mrs Opas should be recalled for further cross-examination after the close of the Crown case.' 'Whether the Crown should disclose lists or documents shown to witnesses in preparation for statements.' 'Whether the Defence should be given leave to further cross-examine Detective Russell about the Stegbar window material and video demonstration.' 'Whether the Crown should disclose documents relating to the window, Stegbar meetings, construction of the window and the video demonstration.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motions were dismissed because Exh 658 did not contradict Mrs Opas' evidence, did not identify her as a source for any reasonable alternative hypothesis, and did not engage Browne v Dunn; the requested disclosure concerning documents shown to witnesses was unsupported by evidence that such lists or documents existed or were in the possession of the prosecutor; and the Accused had already cross-examined Detective Russell on the window and access issues, so there was no proper basis to permit a second cross-examination or make the related disclosure order.

Court Disposition

Order 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 30 October 2019 and Orders 1-4 of the Notice of Motion dated 31 October 2019 were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 30 October 2019 and Orders 1-4 of the Notice of Motion dated 31 October 2019, those Notices of Motion be dismissed.']