R v Warwick (No.61) [2018] NSWSC 2017

R v Warwick (No.61) [2018] NSWSC 2017

MFI B-L was admissible because cross-examination put in issue both Mr Myers' conclusion about Mr Warwick being the only person with a common link to the crimes and the adequacy of the police investigation. The resumé had significant probative value as a contemporaneous summary of the investigation and its results as at April 1986, and its hearsay content was admissible for non-hearsay purposes. In a judge-alone trial, any risk that inaccurate or unsupported statements would cause unfair prejudice could be addressed by submissions and by assessing weight, so exclusion under s 135 or s 137 was not warranted. The exhibit's use was limited to evidence of Mr Myers' understanding of the state...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ex Tempore Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Tender of Document in Re Examination
Outcome
Document admitted subject to limitation on use.
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'hearsay' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'unfair Prejudice' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'police Investigation Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['relevance' 'hearsay' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'unfair Prejudice' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'police Investigation 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 / Ex Tempore Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Tender of Document in Re Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the document formerly marked MFI B-L, a police officer's 1986 resumé of investigation prepared for a coronial inquest, should be admitted in evidence." 'Whether hearsay material in the document precluded its admission or was admissible for a non-hearsay purpose under s 60 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the document should be excluded under s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because of limited probative value or danger of unfair prejudice to the Accused.' 'Whether any use of the admitted document should be limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

MFI B-L was admissible because cross-examination put in issue both Mr Myers' conclusion about Mr Warwick being the only person with a common link to the crimes and the adequacy of the police investigation. The resumé had significant probative value as a contemporaneous summary of the investigation and its results as at April 1986, and its hearsay content was admissible for non-hearsay purposes. In a judge-alone trial, any risk that inaccurate or unsupported statements would cause unfair prejudice could be addressed by submissions and by assessing weight, so exclusion under s 135 or s 137 was not warranted. The exhibit's use was limited to evidence of Mr Myers' understanding of the state...

Court Disposition

Document admitted subject to limitation on use.

Orders

  • ['Document formerly MFI B-L will be admitted and marked Exh 315.' "The parties agree that, pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995, the use of Exh 315 will be limited to evidence of Mr Myers' understanding of the state of the investigation at the time he wrote it."]