Jersey Judgment

AG v Correia [2024] JRC 196 (16 September 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Screens are permitted to ensure the quality of evidence is not compromised, overriding previous refusal based on insufficient statements.

Court disposition

application for screens granted

Orders

  • Screens to be erected to shield the defendant from the complainant and other witness.

02

Material facts

Parties

Complainant

Complainant

Defendant

Defendant

Advocate Jones

Advocate Counsel: Jones

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Application for Special Measures / Interlocutory

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether screens should be allowed for witnesses to protect the quality of their evidence

Party arguments

Applicant
Screens are necessary to protect the quality of evidence, especially for the complainant and a 17-year-old witness.
Respondent
Witnesses should not dictate court procedure; the use of screens is excessive and unwarranted.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    legislation governing special measures

    The quality of evidence must not be adversely affected by the defendant's presence; screens may be used to ensure justice is done.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Screens are permitted to ensure the quality of evidence is not compromised, overriding previous refusal based on insufficient statements.

Obiter and limits

  • Witnesses should not dictate court procedure.
  • The overriding objective is to ensure justice is done.

Court disposition

application for screens granted

  • Screens to be erected to shield the defendant from the complainant and other witness.

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2024] JRC 196

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. I will adjourn briefly for 15 minutes or so, so that the ushers can erect screens in the corner to screen the Defendant from both the Complainant and the other witness.

2. When I heard the application last week, my initial instinct was to allow screens in the case of the Complainant because it was a case which I thought was capable of causing her concern and worry, and in the case of the other witness because she is 17 years old and therefore the quality of her evidence was liable to be affected. Then in the course of the submissions made and a study of the statements that were produced I thought they fell well short of what was required, and so I decided, that I would not allow the screens but would keep an open mind as the evidence came out so that if the situation arose that the quality of the evidence, which is the test under the law, was being adversely affected then I would adjourn and allow the screens to be put up.

3. Now it is true that I had not anticipated that the witnesses would not come into the court room at all and I have quite a lot of sympathy with the submission which Advocate Jones has made that this is the tail wagging the dog and that witnesses should not be in a position to dictate to the Court the way in which their evidence should be given. At the same time, the overriding objective is to ensure that justice is done. The law provides for a process for screens in order to ensure that the quality of evidence given by the witnesses is not affected by matters such as the Defendant's presence in Court and having regard to that overriding objective and the terms of the legislation it seems right to rescind the decision I took last week and to allow screens to be put up. So we will now adjourn for this to be done. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 20 Sep 2024 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.