R v Warwick (No.44) [2018] NSWSC 1295

R v Warwick (No.44) [2018] NSWSC 1295

The Running Sheet was relevant to issues in the proceedings because it documented what occurred in the period following the explosion at the Kingdom Hall, the methodology used by the Ballistics Unit, the engagement and role of identified experts, and addressed the Accused's issue that the investigation was inadequate. Because it was relevant for a non-hearsay purpose, its hearsay contents did not preclude admission, but the statements attributed to Mr Robert Barnes and Mr J Gothard on page 3 were limited so they were not evidence of the truth of their contents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Admission of Exhibit
Outcome
Running Sheet admitted into evidence with a limitation on use of specified statements.
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'hearsay' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'police Running Sheet']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['relevance' 'hearsay' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'police Running Sheet']

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 / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Admission of Exhibit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the five page Running Sheet written by Mr Jesse Sheather on 1 August 1985 should be admitted into evidence.' 'Whether hearsay contents and opinions in the Running Sheet precluded its admission.' 'Whether the use of statements attributed to Mr Robert Barnes and Mr J Gothard should be limited.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Running Sheet was relevant to issues in the proceedings because it documented what occurred in the period following the explosion at the Kingdom Hall, the methodology used by the Ballistics Unit, the engagement and role of identified experts, and addressed the Accused's issue that the investigation was inadequate. Because it was relevant for a non-hearsay purpose, its hearsay contents did not preclude admission, but the statements attributed to Mr Robert Barnes and Mr J Gothard on page 3 were limited so they were not evidence of the truth of their contents.

Court Disposition

Running Sheet admitted into evidence with a limitation on use of specified statements.

Orders

  • ['Running Sheet dated 1 August 1985 is admitted and marked Exh 79.' 'Pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995, I limit the use of the material in the second and third paragraphs on page 3, so that the statement of Mr Robert Barnes and Mr J Gothard are not to be taken as evidence of the truth of their contents.']