AG v McLees [2000] JRC 2 (10 January 2000)

AG v McLees [2000] JRC 2 (10 January 2000)

The similar fact evidence linking the cannabis in the van and the flat was not so unique or striking as to make coincidence inexplicable, and the probative value did not clearly outweigh the prejudicial effect; therefore, the counts should not be tried together.

Citation
[2000] JRC 2
Parties
Defendant: Alexander McLees; Prosecutor: Crown Advocate Costa
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application for Severance of Counts
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Similar Fact Evidence, Severance of Counts, Possession With Intent to Supply, Misuse of Drugs
Criminal Law Similar Fact Evidence Severance of Counts Possession With Intent to Supply Misuse of Drugs

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander McLees

Defendant

Crown Advocate Costa

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application for Severance of Counts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counts relating to cannabis found in the van and in the flat should be tried together based on similar fact evidence
  2. 2 Whether the probative value of the similar fact evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect

Ratio Decidendi

The similar fact evidence linking the cannabis in the van and the flat was not so unique or striking as to make coincidence inexplicable, and the probative value did not clearly outweigh the prejudicial effect; therefore, the counts should not be tried together.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Counts relating to cannabis in the van and in the flat are to be tried separately.