AG v Louis [2023] JRC 225 (20 November 2023)
Where the use of a phone in the commission of an offence is marginal, destruction may be disproportionate; the Defendant should be allowed to preserve genuinely sentimental items before destruction, and in this case, the destruction order is revoked.
- Citation
- [2023] JRC 225
- Parties
- Defendant: Andrew Louis; Co Accused: Ian Manson; Respondent: States of Jersey Police's Digital Forensic Unit
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 20 November 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Post Sentencing Ruling
- Outcome
- Order for destruction of Defendant's phone revoked; phone to be returned to Defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture of Property, Destruction of Evidence, Sentimental Value of Personal Property
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andrew Louis
Defendant
Ian Manson
Co Accused
States of Jersey Police's Digital Forensic Unit
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Sentencing Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant should be allowed to extract personal photographs from his mobile phone before its destruction
- 2 Proportionality of destruction order when phone use in offence is marginal
Ratio Decidendi
Where the use of a phone in the commission of an offence is marginal, destruction may be disproportionate; the Defendant should be allowed to preserve genuinely sentimental items before destruction, and in this case, the destruction order is revoked.
Court Disposition
Order for destruction of Defendant's phone revoked; phone to be returned to Defendant.
Orders
- Phone may be returned to Defendant.
- Crown and defence counsel should agree on phone handling prior to sentencing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment