Citation: R v Warwick (No.87) [2020] NSWSC 36
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 31 January 2020
Judge(s): Garling J
Background
The decision arises from a criminal trial in the Supreme Court. Detective Julia Bradley had originally given evidence for the Crown in September 2019, including both evidence-in-chief and cross-examination.
The accused subsequently obtained leave to recall Detective Bradley for further cross-examination. That leave was granted on a limited basis, confined to specific subject matter identified in nominated paragraphs of an affidavit. Those paragraphs concerned entries in detectives' duty books and whether Detective Bradley had access to certain late-produced Crown material during an interview conducted on 31 August 2015.
During the further cross-examination, a question was asked that the Crown objected to. The court was asked to rule on whether that question fell within the scope of the leave that had been granted.
Legal Issues
- Whether a question put to Detective Bradley in the course of her recalled cross-examination fell within the boundaries of the leave granted by the court for that recall.
Decision
Issue: Scope of leave to cross-examine a recalled witness
Garling J found that the question under objection concerned the methodology used by Detective Bradley and others in recording work done in locating documents within a system called "e@gle.i." The court found this had no connection to the subject matter identified in the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit upon which leave to recall had been granted (at [10]).
The court further noted that no application had been made to extend the conditions attached to the grant of leave. Without such an application, the boundaries of the original grant remained in place (at [12]). The question was rejected as falling well outside those boundaries (at [13]).
Orders Made
- Question rejected.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to recall a witness for further cross-examination carries defined limits, and questions put during that recall must fall within the subject matter for which leave was granted (at [10]-[13]).
- Where cross-examination strays beyond the scope of leave, the question may be rejected without the need to revisit the underlying merits of the broader subject area (at [13]).
- A party seeking to expand the scope of further cross-examination beyond the terms of an existing grant of leave must make a fresh application to extend those conditions. The court noted no such application had been made in this instance (at [12]).
- The Supreme Court applied a fairly strict reading of the leave conditions, finding that a question touching on documentary recording methodology was wholly unconnected to the access-to-material issues for which recall had been permitted (at [10]-[11]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Not Applicable
Cases
- Not Applicable