AG -v- Kean [2013] JRC 200 (15 October 2013)

AG -v- Kean [2013] JRC 200 (15 October 2013)

The court's inherent jurisdiction permits interference with the defendant's Article 8 privacy rights where necessary and proportionate to ensure a fair trial on fitness to plead; disclosure to expert psychiatrists is justified for the prevention of disorder or crime and protection of health, and is limited to the experts only.

Citation
[2013] JRC 200
Parties
Applicant: Attorney-General; Defendant: Mr Kean
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Disclosure Application
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Fitness to Plead, Disclosure of Medical Records, Privacy Rights, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Mental Health Law Fitness to Plead Disclosure of Medical Records Privacy Rights Fair Trial

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney-General

Applicant

Mr Kean

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Disclosure Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order disclosure of the defendant's medical and mental health records to expert psychiatrists despite the defendant's refusal of consent
  2. 2 How to balance Article 8 privacy rights against Article 6 fair trial rights in the context of a fitness to plead hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The court's inherent jurisdiction permits interference with the defendant's Article 8 privacy rights where necessary and proportionate to ensure a fair trial on fitness to plead; disclosure to expert psychiatrists is justified for the prevention of disorder or crime and protection of health, and is limited to the experts only.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Defendant's medical records held by his General Practitioner and mental health records to be supplied to the two expert psychiatrists retained by the Crown and the defendant, notwithstanding the defendant's lack of consent.