R v Warwick (No.73) [2019] NSWSC 1255

Senior Sergeant Schey was not an expert because his evidence lacked indicia of expertise and the location of stored items was not a field of specialised knowledge. Paragraphs 6 and 7 were hearsay and were rejected. Paragraphs 8 to 11 were admissible because they were based on the witness's personal familiarity, knowledge and observations of the relevant premises and storage facilities, and were not hearsay.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 11 September 2019
Procedural Posture: Criminal Evidence Ruling / Procedural Ruling on Tender of Witness Statement
Outcome: Statement admitted except for paragraphs 6 and 7.
Legal Topics: ['witness Evidence' 'hearsay' 'expert Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence']

['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['witness Evidence' 'hearsay' 'expert Evidence' 'admissibility 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

Procedural Posture

Criminal Evidence Ruling / Procedural Ruling on Tender of Witness Statement

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether paragraphs 6 and 7 of Senior Sergeant Edward Schey's statement were admissible as expert evidence under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 despite being hearsay." "Whether paragraphs 8 to 11 of Senior Sergeant Edward Schey's statement were hearsay or were based on the witness's own knowledge and observations."]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Statement admitted except for paragraphs 6 and 7.

Orders

['Statement of Snr Sgt Edward Schey, except for paragraphs 6 and 7 admitted and marked Exh 500.']