Att. Gen. v Mcintyre (No. 1) [2006] JLR_Note 25 (14 August 2006)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The admissibility of police statements depends on compliance with the Code of Conduct.
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ApplicantMcintyre
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether statements to police were obtained in breach of the Code of Conduct
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Code of Conduct
Statements to police must comply with the Code of Conduct.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The admissibility of police statements depends on compliance with the Code of Conduct.
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.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Att. Gen. v Mcintyre (No. 1) [2006] JLR_Note 25 (14 August 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2006/JLR06N025.html Cite as: [2006] JLR_Note 25 [ New search ] [ Help ] Att. Gen. v Mcintyre (No. 1) 2006 JLR Note 25 (14 August 2006) Evidence-statements to police-breach of Code of Conduct The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2006 JLR Note 25 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2006/JLR06N025.html
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.