Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC060G

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

3^rd April 2009

Before     :

Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner, sitting alone.

The Attorney General

-v-

Curtis Warren

John Alan Welsh

James O'Brien

Jason Woodward

Paul Hunt

Oliver Lucas

Ruling on Letters of Request.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate assisted by Advocate D. S. Steenson.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for Welsh.

Advocate E. Le Guillou for O'Brien.

Advocate D. Gilbert for Woodward.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Hunt.

Advocate M. L. Preston for Lucas.

Curtis Warren acting on his own behalf.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro as an amicus to the Court.

RULING

THE commisioner:

1.        I have before me what is conceded to be a highly technical point.  It relates to the admission of evidence pursuant to letters of request and arises out of the provisions of Article 4(4) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation)(Jersey) Law 2001.  That Article appears under the rubric "Overseas Evidence for use in Jersey".  The evidence requested from Dutch and French authorities is set out in the letters of request, heavily redacted copies of these letters have been supplied to the Court and to the defence, though a fuller, though not complete version, has today been produced.

2.        The evidence which is being requested has been supplied, the question is whether it should be admitted.  The point taken by the defence is that the requirements of Article 4(4) have not been complied with, that paragraph is in these terms:-

"Except with the consent of the court, tribunal or authority that supplied the evidence, evidence obtained by virtue of a letter of request shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified in that letter."

The problem highlighted and relied upon by the Defence, is that the letters do not expressly specify the purpose for which the evidence shall be used. 

3.        The Crown's answer is that the purpose was obvious and implicit.  Further it appears from letters of Dutch and French experts, though not it is pointed out authorities, that the purpose for which the evidence was to be used was well understood i.e. that it was to be used for the purposes of the trial of the defendants in Jersey.  Anyone reading the letters would necessarily have come to the same conclusion, there can have been no other purpose intended by the requests. 

4.        I do not accede to the technical objection, which flies against any sensible interpretation of the letters and will hinder the proper management of the trial.  In my view the application is without merit. In addition, if no purpose is specified in the letter, and the evidence is nevertheless supplied, I see nothing to prevent the evidence being used.

5.        A request has been made for a disclosure of further material contained in the letters but at present redacted.  In my view the Crown are correct to describe this as a fishing expedition.  Crown Counsel assure me, as they have on previous occasions, that they are fully aware of their duty to disclose relevant material, that is to say any material which may hamper the prosecution or assist the defence.  I am assured that there is nothing in the letters that the Crown regard as falling within those categories and for which they are required to disclose.

6.        Accordingly the application is refused.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation)(Jersey) Law 2001.