![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 143 (10 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2009/2009_143.html Cite as: [2009] JRC 143 |
[New search] [Help]
[2009]JRC143
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
10th July 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
Curtis Warren acting on his own behalf.
Advocate S. E. Fitz for Welsh.
Advocate J. W. R. Bell for O'Brien.
Advocate D. Gilbert for Woodward.
Advocate M. J. Haines for Hunt.
Advocate M. L. Preston for Lucas.
H. Sharp, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate R. Tremoceiro, as an amicus to the Court.
Reasons relating to documentation to be placed before the Jury.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. A number of propositions emerged from the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in this matter. Firstly, that the transcripts of extracts of recordings can be provided to the jury; there was never any serious opposition to that suggestion. Secondly, that I am not precluded as a matter of law from allowing any commentary to the surveillance schedule going in. Thirdly, there is no question of law which excludes that commentary going in but it is all a matter of case management for my decision. Fourthly, it is a matter for me to make my own decision as to what material is included in this working document which goes before the jury. And fifthly, that it is now a matter for me to reconsider my ruling. I quote from a number of passages in the Court of Appeal's decision, Warren and Others [2009] JCA135 paragraph 89:-
At paragraph 90:-
And a little later:-
And in the latter part of paragraph 91:-
And at paragraph 93:-
That was as to the appeal.
2. Against those passages and having in mind the propositions to which I earlier referred which are supported by the Court of Appeal's ruling, I now make it clear, as the Court of Appeal appreciated, that I regretted having to make the rulings that I did. I was mistaken in regarding them as matters of law in so far as I did, and so far as they contain material which I ruled out as being inadmissible or which has been agreed as being inadmissible and irrelevant, my rulings stand. Those passages are clear to everyone concerned in the case. They refer to inadmissible evidence and to specific references to slang, but matters of explanatory commentary, such as identification of the speaker and references to timings, dates or locations and other matters of commentary can be included, not as matters of evidence but as a matter of case management as a working document in order to assist the jury in following the evidence. It will be made plain for the jury that the document does fall into that category; the evidence will be anything they hear played by way of audio surveillance recordings. The document is not in itself evidence but it is a tool to assist the jury in following the evidence. That I shall make clear if it is not already done so by Crown Advocate Sharp.