R v Warwick (No.31) [2018] NSWSC 1091

R v Warwick (No.31) [2018] NSWSC 1091

The Document Redaction Motion should be listed so that the Commissioner could justify challenged redactions, but the trial should not be adjourned because the matters raised could be managed during the judge-alone trial and further delay was not justified. No further s 142 notice was required because the Crown case was adequately outlined and no useful purpose would be served by ordering a further notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal / Procedural and Other Rulings on Interlocutory Orders Before Trial
Outcome
Notice of Motion made returnable; adjournment refused; no order made requiring a further s 142 notice; trial remained fixed to commence on 16 July 2018.
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'redacted Documents' 'public Interest Immunity' 'disclosure' 'adjournment' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986, S 142' 'case Management']
['criminal Procedure'] ['subpoenas' 'redacted Documents' 'public Interest Immunity' 'disclosure' 'adjournment' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986, S 142' 'case Management']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Common Law Criminal / Procedural and Other Rulings on Interlocutory Orders Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner of NSW Police should be required to produce subpoenaed documents without redactions.' 'Whether Detective Russell should be available for cross-examination on the adequacy of compliance with subpoenas.' 'Whether the proceedings should be adjourned for 28 days or four weeks from 16 July 2018.' 'Whether the Crown should be required to serve a further notice pursuant to s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Document Redaction Motion should be listed so that the Commissioner could justify challenged redactions, but the trial should not be adjourned because the matters raised could be managed during the judge-alone trial and further delay was not justified. No further s 142 notice was required because the Crown case was adequately outlined and no useful purpose would be served by ordering a further notice.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion made returnable; adjournment refused; no order made requiring a further s 142 notice; trial remained fixed to commence on 16 July 2018.

Orders

  • ['Order that the Notice of Motion filed 13 July 2018 be made returnable at 9.30am on Monday 16 July 2018.' "Direct that the Accused's lawyers are to inform the lawyers for the Commissioner of NSW Police of the listing on Monday 16 July 2018 at 9.30am." 'Refuse the application of the Accused for an adjournment of the...