R v Warwick (No.40)

1. [1]

   The Crown seeks to tender a plan drawn of the Kingdom Hall at Casula after the bomb had exploded on 21 July 1985. The Accused objects to the tender.

2. [2]

   Mr Sheather, the present witness, has given evidence that, in his capacity as the head of the Ballistics Unit of the NSW Police Force, he was the officer in charge of the Kingdom Hall site. He has said in evidence that amongst other investigations which he caused to be, and which were, undertaken, the Photogrammetry Unit of the NSW Police Force was summoned to the site for the purpose of preparing a plan in order to document what was to be seen at the site.

The Proposed Exhibit

1. [3]

   The plan that is tendered, besides identifying the site, has recorded on it the following label:

2. [4]

   The plan also notes that minor detail is omitted.

Relevance

1. [5]

   The Crown also tenders this plan on the basis that it is relevant to establish the steps taken in the investigation and the adequacy of the investigation of the Kingdom Hall bombing. The tender of the plan for that purpose is relevant to rebut the attack made by the Accused on the Police investigation.

2. [6]

   In my view, as well, the content of the plan is relevant as evidence of the consequences for the bombing, including where particular features are to be seen and their precise location. It demonstrates in a diagrammatic form drawn to scale, the scene of the Kingdom Hall bombing.

3. [7]

   The Accused objects to the admission of the plan because the person who prepared it, Detective R N Adams, has not been called to identify it and that by reference to his December 2015 statement, Mr Sheather is not capable of identifying it. It is submitted that this witness has no memory in detail of how the plan was prepared and that he is not the appropriate witness to give evidence of it.

4. [8]

   The witness’ December 2015 statement notes that he was shown the plan and a smaller copy of it. He recorded the material on the label to which I have referred. The statement then says this:

5. [9]

   This extract does not support the submission made by the Accused that the witness was not capable of identifying the plan. It seems to me that he was able so to do. The Accused did not seek to examine Mr Sheather on the voir dire to further test his knowledge.

6. [10]

   One of the issues in these proceedings amongst many is the adequacy of the investigation by Police into the crime scene at the Kingdom Hall.

Conclusion

1. [11]

   In my view, although this plan was not prepared by this witness, having regard to his position in the investigation at the time, the content of the label of the document and the type and nature of the document, the plan has been adequately identified by Mr Sheather and is admissible.

2. [12]

   I admit the Photogrammetry Plan of the Kingdom Hall and the copy of it as Exh 68.