AG v Warren and Others [2008] JRC 050 (20 March 2008)

AG v Warren and Others [2008] JRC 050 (20 March 2008)

The admitted unlawful conduct by the police and prosecution authorities, including the deployment of surveillance equipment abroad without proper authority and deception of foreign police, did not amount to an abuse of process requiring a stay of proceedings. There was no suggestion of prejudice or unfairness to the defendants, no entrapment, torture, or breach of legal professional privilege, and the seriousness of the alleged offence justified allowing the prosecution to proceed. The balance of public interest favoured continuation of the trial.

Citation
[2008] JRC 050
Parties
Defendant: Curtis Warren; Prosecution: States of Jersey Police
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Stay Proceedings for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Application to stay proceedings refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Exclusion of Evidence, Unlawful Surveillance, Mutual Legal Assistance, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Privacy
Criminal Law Human Rights Law International Law Abuse of Process Exclusion of Evidence Unlawful Surveillance Mutual Legal Assistance Right to Fair Trial +1 more

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

Parties

Curtis Warren

Defendant

States of Jersey Police

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Stay Proceedings for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution should be stayed as an abuse of process due to unlawful conduct by the police and prosecution authorities
  2. 2 Whether unlawfully obtained evidence should be excluded
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of authorities amounted to an affront to justice

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted unlawful conduct by the police and prosecution authorities, including the deployment of surveillance equipment abroad without proper authority and deception of foreign police, did not amount to an abuse of process requiring a stay of proceedings. There was no suggestion of prejudice or unfairness to the defendants, no entrapment, torture, or breach of legal professional privilege, and the seriousness of the alleged offence justified allowing the prosecution to proceed. The balance of public interest favoured continuation of the trial.

Court Disposition

Application to stay proceedings refused

Orders

  • Prosecution to continue
  • If defence pursues application to exclude evidence, it will be listed for further hearing