AG -v- Coote [2013] JRC 228 (21 November 2013)

AG -v- Coote [2013] JRC 228 (21 November 2013)

The court ruled that, given the defendant's low IQ and psychological vulnerabilities, and the absence of an appropriate adult during the first two interviews, it would be unfair to admit those interviews into evidence. The expert psychological evidence is admissible with agreed redactions. Special measures for the defendant's evidence are permitted, including a detailed defence statement and leading questions, but no intermediary is ordered at this stage.

Citation
[2013] JRC 228
Parties
Defendant: Conor John Coote; Co Accused: Jack Coughlan; Prosecution: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Directions Ruling
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Vulnerable Defendants, Confessions, Special Measures, Expert Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence Vulnerable Defendants Confessions Special Measures Expert Evidence

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conor John Coote

Defendant

Jack Coughlan

Co Accused

Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Directions Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert psychological evidence regarding the defendant's low IQ and vulnerabilities is admissible at trial
  2. 2 Whether interviews conducted without an appropriate adult present are admissible given the defendant's mental capacity
  3. 3 Whether breaches of Code C of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Code of Practice)(Jersey) Order 2004 occurred and their effect on admissibility

Ratio Decidendi

The court ruled that, given the defendant's low IQ and psychological vulnerabilities, and the absence of an appropriate adult during the first two interviews, it would be unfair to admit those interviews into evidence. The expert psychological evidence is admissible with agreed redactions. Special measures for the defendant's evidence are permitted, including a detailed defence statement and leading questions, but no intermediary is ordered at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Expert psychological evidence of Dr Williams is admissible with specified redactions.
  • The first two interviews of 13 December 2012 are excluded from evidence.