AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 093A (14 May 2009)

AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 093A (14 May 2009)

The written statements from undercover Dutch police officers are admissible as the statutory requirements are satisfied, the evidence is relevant but not decisive, and there is no demonstrated unfairness or prejudice to the defendants from the lack of cross-examination. The anonymity of the officers is justified due to operational and public policy reasons, and does not render the trial unfair given the nature of the evidence and its limited role.

Citation
[2009] JRC 093A
Parties
Prosecution: The Attorney General; Defendant: Curtis Warren; Defendant: John Alan Welsh; Defendant: James O'Brien; Defendant: Jason Woodward; Defendant: Paul Hunt; Defendant: Oliver Lucas; Amicus Curiae: Advocate R. Tremoceiro
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence refused; evidence admitted; applications for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Witness Anonymity, Cross Examination Rights, International Cooperation in Criminal Matters
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Witness Anonymity Cross Examination Rights International Cooperation in Criminal Matters

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General

Prosecution

Curtis Warren

Defendant

John Alan Welsh

Defendant

James O'Brien

Defendant

Jason Woodward

Defendant

Paul Hunt

Defendant

Oliver Lucas

Defendant

Advocate R. Tremoceiro

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether written statements from undercover Dutch police officers are admissible without live testimony and cross-examination
  2. 2 Whether the anonymity of certain witnesses should be preserved

Ratio Decidendi

The written statements from undercover Dutch police officers are admissible as the statutory requirements are satisfied, the evidence is relevant but not decisive, and there is no demonstrated unfairness or prejudice to the defendants from the lack of cross-examination. The anonymity of the officers is justified due to operational and public policy reasons, and does not render the trial unfair given the nature of the evidence and its limited role.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence refused; evidence admitted; applications for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Written statements from undercover Dutch police officers admitted as evidence.
  • Anonymity of certain witnesses preserved.