AG v Glas (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal) : MacRae) [2025] JRC 212 (31 July 2025)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. The Defendant was arraigned on indictment on 6 September 2024. The trial commenced on 31 March 2025. Legal matters in this case, including the admissibility of evidence, were dealt with at a directions hearing on 13 February 2025. However, by skeleton argument dated 26 March 2025, the defence made an application to adduce bad character evidence to which the Crown responded promptly on the last working day before the trial, Friday 28 March 2025. This application was made very late and contrary to the Criminal Procedure Rules but nonetheless, in the exercise of my discretion, I considered it, and subsequent submissions made orally by both counsel.

2. I will, if necessary, give further reasons supporting the decisions that I have reached in relation to the five matters which the defence say ought to be admitted as non-defendant bad character in relation to the Complainant in this case in due course. I will deal with each in turn. (i) The allegation that the Complainant assaulted the Defendant as set out at paragraph 16(f) of the Defendant's Amended Defence Case Statement (this allegation did not appear in the Defendant's original Defence Case Statement) dated 12 February 2025. The Crown has already adduced evidence of an incident where the Complainant struck the Defendant and gave him a black eye. Having heard the Complainant give evidence-in-chief, this appears to be separate from the incident referred to at page 10 of the witness statement made by the Complainant's mother. She says the Defendant told her shortly before an exorcism involving the Complainant and the Defendant that an incident had taken place where the Complainant visited the Defendant at Sacred Heart and they had had an argument during which the Complainant had hit the Defendant and the Defendant had had to restrain him. This left the Defendant with a bruised eye. Otherwise, this would appear to be a non-proven and untested allegation of assault which does not meet the test for admissibility of non-defendant bad character established by case law (see,

for example, AG v PMB [2021] JRC 335 paragraphs 26 to 35 inclusive and AG v MP [2024] JRC 212) having regard to the terms of Article 82J of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 ("the Law"). The defence say that the relevance of the extended description of the incident that took place at Sacred Heart prior to the exorcism contained in paragraph 16(f) is that it explains why the exorcism took place at all and was a 'catalyst' for it. However, the wider context for the exorcism is set out in part of the statement of the Complainant's mother, which the defence are able to cross-examine into evidence. The fact of the exorcism itself is of doubtful relevance in this case, in my judgement, and was not referred to in the original defence case statement or the extensive recorded communications about the alleged offences which took place between the Complainant and the Defendant in 2019 and 2023. The Complainant's parents regret agreeing to it and the Complainant's father regards it as an abrogation of his responsibility to his son. The reliance upon the exorcisms in the Defence Case Statement indicates that they were pleaded in response to reference to these events in witness statements disclosed by the Crown in this case. No real connection between the allegations that the Complainant now makes and the exorcisms is drawn in the Defence Case Statement or the

skeleton argument filed on behalf of the Defendant for the purpose of this application. What seems to be said is that the allegations made by him are inconsistent with the Complainant, when aged 16, " voluntarily " submitting himself to exorcism by the Defendant. It is also said that this is important background evidence. The evidence in respect of the exorcism is not bad character evidence but if admissible at all, admissible at customary law on the principle from the English Court of Appeal decision in R v Pettman [2 May 1995 unreported] as adopted by the Jersey courts in, inter alia, the judgment of Nutting JA in U v AG [2012] JLR 349 namely " Where it is necessary to place before the jury evidence of part of a continual background or history relevant to the offence charged in the indictment, and without the totality of which the account placed before the jury would be incomplete or incomprehensible" . I do not think that the evidence in relation to the exorcism falls within that category. Having reached that conclusion in relation to the exorcism itself, I am equally of the view that the alleged incident referred to in the Defence Case Statement which is said to have occurred prior to the exorcism also fails to meet the statutory test for admission of non-defendant bad character evidence. As to the alternative basis for admissibility, namely that it is a matter of

substantial probative value in relation to a matter which is a matter an issue in the proceedings and of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, the issue identified by the defence in the defence argument is not the Complainant's credibility, but the issue as to whether the Complainant had the " fortitude to stand up to the Defendant ". It is argued that the fact that the Complainant assaulted the Defendant shows that he had that capability. It is also said that the evidence in question shows that the Complainant was " capable of behaving erratically " at a time " relatively contemporaneous with the alleged offending ". In fact, the exorcism took place some months after the end of the alleged offending and if this basis for admissibility was upheld then all complainants in sex cases who had troubled teenage years - including difficulties with their mental health and possible involvement with alcohol and drugs - would routinely have those matters exposed and used to attack their credibility. That is not permitted by Article 82J. Furthermore, the Defendant's account in his Defence Case Statement in relation to the extended incident which he describes of the Complainant attending the Defendant's home, becoming aggressive, destroying items on the premises, threatening the Defendant, attacking the Defendant, having to be restrained, hitting the Defendant over

the head with a picture, falling against a wall and then collapsing is not only an account which was not disclosed in that detail to the Complainant's mother at the time, but also - the Defendant says in his Defence Case Statement - a matter which the Complainant cannot recall as he is alleged to have said as much the following day. Accordingly, it is an allegation of bad character made at the 11 th hour which, on the Defendant's case, cannot be challenged. For the reasons set out above, had the Crown contested the matter I may well have decided that the evidence in relation to the exorcism was not admissible. The extended evidence as to the circumstances leading to the exorcism fails the statutory test for admissibility. The defence, if the Defendant gives evidence and/or in cross-examination of the Complainant and his mother in relation to the circumstances leading up to it, is limited to adducing the matters which the Defendant communicated to the Complainant's mother 18 years ago and set out at page 10 of her witness statement. (ii) As to the fact that the Complainant was arrested as a 17-year-old teenager (not charged let alone convicted) in possession of an identification card with false details when the Complainant was intoxicated, this incident fails the test for admissibility. No fair-minded tribunal would regard this evidence as affecting the worth of the evidence of

the Complainant. It is notoriously common for teenagers aged under 18 to carry false identification in order that they can produce it to purchase alcohol. (iii) The evidence that the Complainant, in the words of the application to admit this evidence, " partied and drank heavily when he was a late teen and that he escaped to Gosport to detox " prima facie falls into the same category. It is doubtful that such material amounts to reprehensible behaviour in any event and therefore is unlikely to be evidence of bad character. However the Crown has adduced evidence of the Complainant drinking alcohol to excess from time to time and the evidence is now before the jury. Having heard submissions it is clear that neither party is saying that the Complainant travelled to Gosport " to detox ". The defence will be submitting, as they are entitled to submit, that the Complainant's decision to visit and stay with the Defendant at his home in Gosport when an adult is inconsistent with the allegations that he now makes. (iv) The evidence that the Complainant used illicit drugs as a teenager, which he later self-reported to the [ ] church. This was a confidential disclosure that the Complainant made in the context of various revelations about himself, and observations were in turn recorded about him - for example, he was described as pleasant, polite and co-operative throughout interview and

when tested on various matters. He reported two occasions of cannabis use, two occasions of Ecstasy use, and some use of MDMA in the summer of 2009 while working as a DJ but no further use since. Again, this fails the test for admissibility - a fair-minded tribunal would not regard these matters as affecting the worth of the evidence of the witness. (v) The suggestion that a character reference submitted on the Complainant's behalf in March 2011 in support of his application for a vocational course ostensibly completed by the Defendant was in fact completed by someone else. This reference was found in the unused material for this case and the Defendant does not accept writing the document. He says it is not his handwriting and the signature is not his. It is argued by the defence that it is implicit in the Defendant's denial of knowledge of the reference that the Complainant submitted a false document. The Crown obtained a statement from CF dated 28 March 2025. CF for 20 years oversaw the selection process. He says that during the process for selection the names of referees are provided by the individuals. The referees are then contacted directly and provided with a standard letter and pro forma which they are requested to complete as a written reference. That was the process in place in 2011 when the Complainant named the Defendant as his referee. In a subsequent email, CF has

gone on to say that the reference from the Defendant seems " completely authentic " to him and is written very much in the way that he would have expected. The reference would have been returned to his office by the Defendant having initially been sent to the Defendant by CF's secretary. CF's secretary has also had an email exchange saying that, as far as she can recall, the form was sent to the Defendant by post at the address on the front page of the request for the reference - at the Defendant's address in Gosport. So the Crown's enquiries do not suggest that there is an evidential basis to support an assertion that the Complainant submitted a false document as part of his application. If the Defendant in his evidence wishes to deny that the document is signed by him then that is a matter for him, but it would clearly be an allegation amounting to bad character to put it to the Complainant that he or someone acting on his behalf had forged this document. Under Article 82B of the Law a court need not assume that alleged bad character evidence is true if it appears on the basis of the material before the court that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true. On the evidence before me, a jury could not reasonably find that this alleged reprehensible behaviour involving the Complainant is true. Accordingly this is not a matter which can be explored with the Complainant and as such is not admissible for that purpose. Authorities AG v PMB [2021] JRC 335. AG v MP [2024] JRC 212. Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003. U v AG [2012] JLR 349 Page Last Updated: 03 Sep 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII