AG v Barnett [2020] JRC 026 (12 February 2020)

AG v Barnett [2020] JRC 026 (12 February 2020)

There was no evidence that the defendant's actions—inviting Mr Voisin to confess without pressure, inducement, or unlawful means—had a tendency to pervert the course of justice. A properly directed jury could not find the second element of the offence proved.

Citation
[2020] JRC 026
Parties
Defendant: Charles David Barnett; Prosecution: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
No case to answer; defendant acquitted on submission
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, Elements of Criminal Offences, No Case to Answer Submission
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice Elements of Criminal Offences No Case to Answer Submission

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles David Barnett

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's actions had a tendency to pervert the course of justice
  2. 2 Whether an invitation to confess without pressure or inducement can constitute perverting the course of justice

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the defendant's actions—inviting Mr Voisin to confess without pressure, inducement, or unlawful means—had a tendency to pervert the course of justice. A properly directed jury could not find the second element of the offence proved.

Court Disposition

No case to answer; defendant acquitted on submission

Orders

  • Defendant acquitted; no case to answer on the second element of the offence