A, B and E v HM Attorney General [2020] JRC 118 (19 June 2020)

A, B and E v HM Attorney General [2020] JRC 118 (19 June 2020)

The convictions were unsafe because the Assistant Magistrate applied the wrong legal test for recklessness under Article 35(1)(b) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, failed to properly assess the sufficiency and reliability of the expert evidence, and did not adequately address disclosure issues. The cumulative effect of these errors rendered the convictions unsatisfactory and the appeals must be allowed.

Citation
[2020] JRC 118
Parties
First Appellant: [Redacted]; Second Appellant: [Redacted]; Third Appellant: [Redacted]; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Child Endangerment, Mens Rea (intention and Recklessness), Judicial Recusal, Expert Evidence, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Child Protection Law Appeal Against Conviction Child Endangerment Mens Rea (intention and Recklessness) Judicial Recusal Expert Evidence Disclosure Obligations

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[Redacted]

First Appellant

[Redacted]

Second Appellant

[Redacted]

Third Appellant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Assistant Magistrate erred in failing to recuse himself from the trial
  2. 2 Whether the admission of late expert evidence was improper
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure to order proper disclosure regarding expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were unsafe because the Assistant Magistrate applied the wrong legal test for recklessness under Article 35(1)(b) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, failed to properly assess the sufficiency and reliability of the expert evidence, and did not adequately address disclosure issues. The cumulative effect of these errors rendered the convictions unsatisfactory and the appeals must be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions of all three Appellants under Article 35(1)(b) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 are quashed.
  • No order for retrial.