R v Warwick (No.44)

1. [1]

   The Crown tenders a five page Running Sheet written by the present witness, Mr Jesse Sheather, on 1 August 1985, entitled:

2. [2]

   The Accused objects to its admission into evidence on the basis that the document amounts to hearsay evidence, including opinions expressed by other people.

The Proposed Exhibit

1. [3]

   The document is a contemporaneous account of the investigation undertaken by Mr Sheather and members of the Ballistics Unit at the Kingdom Hall. Reference was made in the document to investigations also undertaken by scientists asked to assist. As well, it refers to the post-mortem examination undertaken on the body of the late Graham Wykes.

Relevance

1. [4]

   The Crown tenders the document pursuant to s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 as being evidence relevant for another, non-hearsay purpose. That purpose was identified as being to indicate the nature and extent of the investigations being undertaken, and the results which were being received and reported.

2. [5]

   The adequacy of the investigation of the Kingdom Hall is an issue in the proceedings. The exhibit, if admitted, would support the purpose identified, which is a relevant purpose.

3. [6]

   In my view, the Running Sheet is relevant to the issues in the proceedings in that it documents a summary of what occurred within a period of ten days or so following the explosion at the Kingdom Hall, as well as the methodology used by the Ballistics Unit to undertake its investigation, the engagement of identified experts and the role which those identified experts played.

4. [7]

   It is relevant to address the issue raised by the Accused, being that the investigation which was undertaken was an inadequate one.

Discernment

1. [8]

   The proposed exhibit has been demonstrated to be relevant for a non-hearsay purpose. Accordingly, the fact that the document and some of its contents constitutes hearsay evidence, does not preclude its admissibility.

2. [9]

   Accordingly, the document ought to be admitted.

Limitation on Use

1. [10]

   Although no direct reference was made by the solicitor for the Accused to the provisions of s 136 of the Evidence Act, or any limitation on the use of this document, it seems appropriate, having regard to the tenor of the Accused’s submissions on admissibility, that the contents of the second and third paragraphs on page 3, ought be subject to a limitation on their use, namely that the contents of those paragraphs are not evidence of the truth of the statements in them which are attributed to Mr Robert Barnes, or Mr J Gothard in the document.