AG v Buckley Croke Crook Breen [2002] JRC 19 (22 January 2002)

AG v Buckley Croke Crook Breen [2002] JRC 19 (22 January 2002)

Evidence obtained by intrusive surveillance involving trespass and breach of Article 8 is not automatically inadmissible in Jersey. The correct test is whether, having regard to all the circumstances, including the manner in which the evidence was obtained, its admission would render the trial unfair. In this case, the police acted in good faith, followed appropriate procedures, and there were no additional factors making admission unfair. Therefore, the evidence should not be excluded.

Citation
[2002] JRC 19
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Trevor Croke; Applicant/defendant: Michael John Breen; Respondent/prosecution: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Exclude Evidence
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Right to Privacy, Intrusive Surveillance, Discretion to Exclude Evidence
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence Illegally Obtained Evidence Right to Privacy Intrusive Surveillance Discretion to Exclude Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Croke

Applicant/defendant

Michael John Breen

Applicant/defendant

Attorney General

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Exclude Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence obtained by intrusive surveillance (secret recordings via trespass) should be excluded as unlawfully obtained and unfair
  2. 2 Whether Jersey law requires exclusion of such evidence to ensure a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence obtained by intrusive surveillance involving trespass and breach of Article 8 is not automatically inadmissible in Jersey. The correct test is whether, having regard to all the circumstances, including the manner in which the evidence was obtained, its admission would render the trial unfair. In this case, the police acted in good faith, followed appropriate procedures, and there were no additional factors making admission unfair. Therefore, the evidence should not be excluded.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence refused

Orders

  • Secretly recorded evidence obtained by police surveillance is admissible at trial.