AG v Quinn (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal) : Binnington) [2025] JRC 322 (2 December 2025)

judgment the commissioner: 1. This is the Court's judgment on applications made by the Crown at a pre-trial hearing on 17 November 2025.

2. The Defendant is due to stand trial before an Assize jury on 15 December 2025 in respect of one count of grave and criminal assault alleged to have been committed on 20 November 2024 at MP La Moye on a fellow prisoner Cameron Smith ("the Complainant").

3. There were two applications by the Crown before the Court: (i) An application to adduce at trial evidence of the Defendant's bad character; and (ii) An application to adduce expert evidence at trial as to the Complainant's injuries and the amount of force alleged to have been used by the Defendant.

4. Both applications were opposed by the defence. The allegation against the Defendant and his defence 5. According to the Crown's case summary, in November 2024, the Defendant and the Complainant were both serving prisoners at HMP La Moye and housed on J Wing. It is alleged that on Wednesday 20 November 2024, at 7:24 p.m., the Complainant was standing in the doorway of his cell, located on the first floor, using a vape. The Defendant, who had been on the ground floor, went up the stairs and walked past the Complainant and into the Complainant's cell. CCTV shows the Defendant entering the Complainant's cell and attempting to close the door. By then, the Complainant had turned around and was facing the Defendant. The Complainant can be seen to use his right foot and right arm to keep the door open. It is alleged that the Defendant spoke with the Complainant about money that the Complainant owed him and the Complainant told the Defendant he could pay him £20 that week, and £10 the following week. The Complainant thought this was the end of the conversation, the conversation having taken place within the cell. The Defendant then moved out of the cell and as he did so, the Defendant raised his right fist for approximately 5 seconds before punching the Complainant twice to the head. The Complainant does not retaliate in any way. The Defendant is seen walking away from the Complainant 's cell, back down the stairs to the ground floor. The Complainant remained in the doorway of his cell vaping.

6. It is alleged that approximately thirty minutes later, the Complainant felt his jaw to be very painful and asked to be taken to hospital. It was confirmed later at Jersey General Hospital that the Complainant had a nondisplaced fracture of his jaw.

7. The Defendant, in his Defence Case Statement, says that the Complainant owed the Defendant money and that as a result the Complainant was 'talking shit' about the Defendant, telling everyone that he 'wasn't scared' of the Defendant - the implication being that he was not going to pay his debt to the Defendant.

8. The Defendant states that he went to talk to the Complainant in private but that when he did so the Complainant became aggressive and kept saying words to the effect of 'what are you going to do?'. The Defendant states that when he said this the final time, the Complainant moved as if he was going to head-butt him. He alleges that the Complainant was being aggressive and given what he had also been saying about the Defendant, the Defendant believed that the Complainant was going to attack him by head-butting him.

9. The Defendant says that he therefore hit the Complainant once to prevent him from attacking him and/or injuring him. The bad character application 10. The Crown seek to adduce evidence of the fact that the Defendant has previous convictions for violence (grave and criminal assault in 2009 and common assault 2018).

11. In addition, the Crown seeks to rely on certain facts of the 2009 conviction for a grave and criminal assault, taken from the Royal Court's sentencing judgment ( AG v Quinn [2009] JRC079).

12. The proposed admission, in the event of the application being granted is the following - "On 28 November 2009, the Defendant committed a grave and criminal assault when he was 18 years old and intoxicated after leaving Havana nightclub. The victim, who was not known to the Defendant, was pursued by the Defendant after the victim had slapped the Defendant's friend in the face. The assault was captured on CCTV which included the Defendant rugby tackling the victim to the floor then punching him seven or eight times in the head while holding him down. At no stage did the victim offer the Defendant any threat." 13. The Crown base their application on three of the gateways specified in the Police Procedure and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 ("the PPCE"), namely: (i) Article 82F - Relevant to an important matter in issue between that defendant and the prosecution. (ii) Article 82I - Evidence to correct a false impression given by that defendant. (iii) Article 82G: Attack on another person's character. The statutory gateways 14. Under Article 82E(1), evidence of a defendant's bad character is now admissible in criminal proceedings if, inter alia , it is admissible under any of the gateways set out in Articles 82F to 82I.

15. A number of safeguards are set out in Article 82E (2) to (4) as follows: "(2) The court must not admit evidence under Article 82F or Article 82G if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. (3) On an application to exclude evidence under paragraph (2) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged. (4) In proceedings for an offence committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a defendant who has attained the age of 21, evidence of his or her conviction for an offence when under the age of 15 is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the interests of justice require the evidence to be admissible." 16. Evidence of a person's "bad character" is defined by Article 82C of the PPCE as: "evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his or her part, other than evidence which - has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged; or is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence." 17. "Misconduct" is defined under Article 82A(1) as meaning "the commission of an offence or other

reprehensible behaviour". Article 82F gateway - matter in issue 18. The gateway to admissibility under Article 82F of the PPCE, entitled "Matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution" provides, so far as is relevant for the present application, that: "(1)...... evidence of a defendant's bad character is admissible if it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution which includes - the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he or she is charged, except where the defendant having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he or she is guilty of the offence....." 19. Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of Article 82F provide that: "(2) Only prosecution evidence is admissible under this Article. (3) Where paragraph (1)(a) applies, a defendant's propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he or she is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that the defendant has been convicted of - an offence of the same description as the one with which he or she is charged; or an offence of a similar nature or type as the one with which he or she is charged. Paragraph (3) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied that, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, it would

be unjust for it to apply in his or her case." 20. The Crown's primary submission was that the bad character evidence was admissible as being relevant to a matter in issue. Their case is that the Defendant was the aggressor in circumstances where the Complainant offered no violence. The Defendant is advancing self-defence. The prosecution relies on the Defendant's previous convictions for violence to demonstrate that the Defendant has a propensity to commit violent offences. They argue that the facts of the present case are similar to those in respect of the 2009 conviction, in that in both cases the other party offered no threat whatsoever to the Defendant, but he nevertheless went on to assault them. Whilst the Crown accepted that the 2009 conviction was some sixteen years ago, when the Defendant was aged 18, it was not so old as to make it unjust for it to be admitted.

21. Advocate Jones, for the Defendant, argued that the Crown was seeking to admit bad character evidence for the purpose of bolstering a weak case and that this was particularly so when the Complainant was not being called to give evidence. He submitted that not only was the first conviction some considerable time ago but there was a significant gap between it and the second. If the two convictions were to be taken as showing propensity, then he suggested that that would be the case even for a single offence.

22. Advocate Jones pointed out that in neither of the previous cases was it suggested that the victim provoked the Defendant and that they were instead instances of drunken violence, which he contrasted with the allegation in the present case where the alleged assault was committed in the controlled environment of a prison, which was a completely different dynamic.

23. Advocate Jones submitted that the Crown were seeking to persuade the jury that the Defendant was a violent man based on the fact that he was sent to prison for assault when a teenager and nine years later committed an assault whilst drunk and disorderly.

24. In response, Advocate Carvalho pointed out that the standard jury direction in relation to propensity guards against the risk of the jury being prejudiced by an earlier conviction. The direction states: "You have to decide whether these previous convictions show that the Defendant has a tendency to behave in this way. If you are not sure that the Defendant's previous convictions show that the Defendant has such a tendency, then you must ignore them....... Just because someone has behaved this way in the past does not prove they did so on this occasion, but you may use it as some support for the prosecution case. You must not, however, convict the Defendant wholly or mainly on the evidence of what, if anything, you find the Defendant has done in the past." 25. R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 , a decision of the English Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, is the leading English case on the equivalent English statutory provisions, namely sections 101 to 103 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was cited with approval by the Royal Court in AG v M and P [2019] JRC 247.

26. At paragraph 4 of the judgment, Rose L. J. said this: "4. The starting point should be for judges and practitioners to bear in mind that Parliament's purpose in the legislation, ... was to assist in the evidence-based conviction of the guilty, without putting those who are not guilty at risk of conviction by prejudice. It is accordingly to be hoped that prosecution applications to adduce such evidence will not be made routinely, simply because a defendant has previous convictions, but will be based on the particular circumstances of each case." 27. He went on to say, at paragraph 7: "There are three questions to be considered when considering propensity:- "1. Does the history of conviction(s) establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged?

2. Does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged?

3. Is it unjust to rely on the conviction(s) of the same description or [similar nature or type]; and, in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if they are admitted?" 28. In AG v M and P , the Royal Court noted that Rose LJ went on to say that: "There is no minimum number of events necessary to establish propensity. A single previous conviction for an offence of the same description or category will often not show propensity, but it may do so where it shows a tendency to unusual behaviour or where its circumstances demonstrate probative force in relation to the offence charged. Circumstances demonstrating probative force are not confined to those sharing striking similarity. If the modus operandi has significant features shared by the offence charged it may show propensity. (paragraph 9)" 29. I have considered the convictions sought to be adduced by the Crown and regard them as being capable of establishing a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged. It is true to say, as Advocate Jones has pointed out, that the defence of self-defence was not raised in either of the previous cases, and both of them were committed at a time when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, which is clearly not the case with the present charge. However, both previous convictions involved a significant degree of violence towards victims who offered no threat. It is also a feature of the 2009 conviction that the Defendant instigated the encounter by following the victim from the nightclub. In the present case, the Defendant is alleged to have instigated the encounter by going upstairs to the Complainant's cell and entering it. I am satisfied that there is sufficient similarity so as to be capable of demonstrating propensity.

30. I have also considered the length of time between the 2009 conviction and that in 2018, together with the period between both and the present, in addition to the fact that the Defendant was aged 18 at the time of the first conviction. The Defendant is now 35 years old, and in the circumstances, I do not regard these time periods as reducing the capability of the convictions to evidence propensity.

31. I would answer the first two questions posed in Hanson in the affirmative.

32. In relation to the third question, I recognise that whilst it may be important that the jury should be aware of how the Defendant has behaved on previous occasions, they must not be unduly influenced by that evidence. That, and the fact that the first offence was committed when the Defendant was only 18, can be dealt with by appropriate directions to the jury. Furthermore, I do not regard the bad character evidence as being introduced to bolster an otherwise hopeless case. The Defendant does not deny hitting the Complainant and the incident was captured on CCTV. An important issue will therefore be identifying who was the aggressor and the evidence of propensity is relevant to that.

33. I therefore answer the third question in the affirmative and give leave to adduce the evidence under Article 82F.

34. In the light of that decision, whilst there is no need to reach a decision on the remaining gateways I shall indicate my conclusions for the sake of completeness. Article 82G gateway - attack on another person's character 35. This gateway provides that: (1) Evidence of a defendant's bad character is admissible if the defendant has made an attack on another person's character. (2) Only prosecution evidence is admissible under this Article. (3) A defendant makes an attack on another person's character if - (a) he or she adduces evidence attacking the other person's character; (b) he or she (or any legal representative appointed to cross-examine a witness in the defendant's interests) asks questions in cross-examination that are intended to elicit such evidence, or are likely to do so; or (c) evidence is given of an imputation about the other person made by the defendant - ( i ) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he or she is charged, or (ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he or she might be prosecuted for it. (4) In paragraph (3)(a) "evidence attacking the other person's character" means evidence to the effect that the other person - (a) has committed an offence (whether a different offence from the one with which the defendant is charged or the same one); or (b) has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a reprehensible way. (5) In paragraph (3)(c), "imputation about the other person" means an assertion to that effect.

36. The Crown submitted that through his interview and Defence Case Statement the Defendant had sought to impugn the Complainant's character as he stated that the Complainant "moved as if he was going to head-butt" the Defendant and he further alleged that the Complainant was being "aggressive". Accordingly, they submitted that Article 82G was invoked and the Defendant's previous convictions for violence ought to be admitted.

37. Advocate Jones submitted that in cases where the defence of self-defence was raised it must be permissible for it to be raised without the Defendant losing his shield against the admission of bad character evidence. He suggested that if it were otherwise then bad character would be adduced in every case where self-defence was an issue. In essence, the Defendant was saying that he was allowed to do what he did and that was a matter for the jury to decide.

38. Had I not admitted the evidence through Article 82F I would have agreed with the defence assertion that in the circumstances of this case Article 82G is not invoked. Article 82I gateway: Evidence given to correct a false impression 39. Article 82I provides that: "(1) Evidence of a defendant's bad character is admissible if it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant. (2) The defendant gives a false impression if he is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant. (3) Evidence to correct such an impression is evidence which has probative value in correcting it. (4) Only prosecution evidence is admissible under this Article and provided it goes no further than is necessary to correct the false impression. (5) A defendant is treated as being responsible for the making of an assertion if- (a) the assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him or her); (b) the assertion was made by the defendant - ( i ) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he or she is charged, or (ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he or she might be prosecuted for it, and evidence of the assertion is to be given in the proceedings;......." 40. In respect of this gateway, the Crown sought to suggest that in his interview with the police the Defendant sought to give a false impression as to his character when he said "first time in my life of it to anyone in the face I get caught on fucking HD camera (sic)" .

41. The Crown submitted that the transcript had transcribed the audio incorrectly as the Defendant can be heard saying - "first time in my life I've hit to anyone in the face I get caught on fucking HD camera." 42. The Defendant went on to say - "On the outside world that would never have happened. I'd have walked away" and "Yeah, I'm not a violent person that, like I said, that's the first time I've punched someone in the face in jail ever." 43. The Crown submitted that the Defendant's previous convictions for violence should be admitted as relevant to correct a false impression given by the Defendant in his interview, namely that he was not a violent person.

44. The Court asked counsel to address it in relation to dicta of Simon LJ in the English Court of Appeal decision in R v Aftab Ulhaq Khan [2020] EWCA (Crim) 163 , which concerned an appellant who had been charged with possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply as a result of a search of a hostel following the unexplained, sudden death of a resident and the finding of controlled dugs in the appellant's possession. The appellant was living at the hostel at the time and had denied in interview that he had ever supplied drugs. He had a previous conviction for attempting to supply controlled drugs and the prosecution had sought leave to admit evidence of his previous conviction in order to correct a false impression, which the trial judge had granted.

45. The Court of Appeal noted that it was: "...important to identify the express or implied assertion he was making. It is true that he said in the earlier stages of the first interview - "I've never supplied drugs", and "I have not supplied anybody in the hostel or anywhere with Class A or other drugs"; and in the later stages of the second interview - "I've never sold heroin, not once". But the point he was addressing, and which he reiterated, was an accusation that he had supplied drugs in the hostel. In the earlier interview, the suggestion of supplying drugs to the man who had died was particularly addressed. On this suggestion, the appellant's case was clear: that he had possession of the drugs as a user." 46. The Court held that: "We can see no good reason why the record of the interview could not have been further edited, under section 105(6) , so as to remove references to any more general implied assertion that he was not the sort of person who supplied drugs, so as to correct any false impression." 47. Advocate Carvalho submitted that any editing out of the more general assertion would itself create a false impression and would be unfair to the prosecution.

48. Advocate Jones submitted that the prosecution's interpretation of what the Defendant said in interview did some violence to what the Defendant was trying to say. He submitted that the Defendant was not saying that he had never hit anyone before but that it was the first time that he had hit someone in prison. He suggested that if anything the comments were admissions against interest and admissible on that basis. Accordingly, the comments could be left in, and it was open to both the Crown and the defence to suggest to the jury how they should interpret the words used. It was therefore unnecessary to adduce evidence to correct a false impression.

49. I agree with the defence submission that it is not necessary to invoke Article 82I to deal with the assertions made by the Defendant in interview. Application to adduce expert evidence 50. The Crown sought leave under Rule 45 of the Criminal Procedure (Jersey) Rules 2021 to adduce expert evidence from Doctor Deryn Evans who is a forensic physician and general practitioner, and the Lead Forensic Physician for the States of Jersey Police.

51. The particular evidence upon which the Crown seeks to rely is evidence in a report prepared by Dr Evans and dated 2 August 2025 in which Dr Evans opines as to the degree of force used by the Defendant to break the Complainant's jaw.

52. The Crown argued that this evidence is necessary both in order to refute a suggestion by the Defendant in interview that the Complainant had a "glass-like jaw" and thus little force would be necessary to break it and necessary to assist the jury, if they were satisfied that the Defendant was acting in self-defence, to determine whether or not the degree of force used was reasonable. It was submitted that this was a matter which involved an area of expertise outside the knowledge of a jury.

53. The defence objected to the admission of expert evidence, principally on the ground that a jury did not need an expert to assist them when determining whether or not the degree of force used by the Defendant was proportionate to the threat of violence that he said that he faced. Advocate Jones submitted that all that was necessary for the prosecution to prove was that the Defendant punched the Complainant and broke his jaw.

54. The Court recognises that the burden is on the Crown to prove that, if the Defendant was acting in self-defence, the degree of force that he used was disproportionate to the level of threat that he faced and was unreasonable. Although the fact that the Complainant's jaw was broken is not in dispute the level of force necessary to produce that result may be questioned at trial, as indeed it appears to have been during the Defendant's interview. The Crown is entitled to adduce evidence on that point, and the Court accepts that this particular issue may well be outside the everyday experience of the jury and thus justify expert evidence.

55. The Crown is accordingly given leave to adduce the evidence of Dr Evans. Authorities AG v Quinn [2009] JRC 079. Police Procedure and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003. R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 . AG v M and P [2019] JRC 247. R v Aftab Ulhaq Khan [2020] EWCA (Crim) 163 . Criminal Procedure (Jersey) Rules 2021. Page Last Updated: 15 Jan 2026 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII