AG v Burke [2008] JRC 107 (04 July 2008)
- Citation
- [2008] JRC 107
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Application
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Application
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
There are no grounds to overrule the Crown Advocate's discretion not to call Fogg, as he supports the defence and not the prosecution case.
Court disposition
application rejected
02
Material facts
Parties
Defence
Applicant Counsel: Mr HainesCrown Advocate
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the court should overrule the Crown Advocate's discretion not to call a witness who does not support the prosecution case
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defence seeks an order to overrule the Crown Advocate's discretion and require the calling of Fogg as a prosecution witness.
- Respondent
- The Crown Advocate decided not to call Fogg as he does not support the Crown's case, but arrangements were made for the defence to call him if desired.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Archbold 2008, paragraph 4-275
The Crown is under no obligation to call a witness solely to assist the defence in destroying the Crown's own case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
There are no grounds to overrule the Crown Advocate's discretion not to call Fogg, as he supports the defence and not the prosecution case.
Court disposition
application rejected
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. This is an application by the defence for an order overruling the discretion of the Crown Advocate as to the calling a witness named Fogg.
2. The Crown Advocate has decided that Fogg should not be called for the prosecution because he does not, in essence, support the Crown case. The Crown Advocate has nonetheless made arrangements for the witness to be called should the defence wish to call him.
3. Mr Haines has drawn my attention to the relevant principles in Archbold , except that he did not draw my attention to paragraph 4-275 of the text. That paragraph makes it clear that the Crown is under no obligation to call a witness for no purpose other than to assist the defence to destroy the Crown's own case.
4. Looking at the evidence of Fogg it is clear to me that he supports the evidence of the defendant. He is in essence a defence witness and in my judgment there are no grounds upon which I could properly overrule the discretion of the Crown Advocate not to call Fogg as a witness for the prosecution.
5. The application is accordingly rejected. Authorities Archbold 2008. Page Last Updated: 15 Mar 2017 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.