AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 026B (17 February 2009)

AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 026B (17 February 2009)

There was no material evidence that Advocate Gollop misled the court or that his prior representation of Welsh created a conflict of interest; therefore, there were no grounds to require his withdrawal.

Citation
[2009] JRC 026B
Parties
Defendant: Curtis Warren; Prosecutor: Crown Advocate Gollop; Defendant: Welsh; Co Defendant: Liazid
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Conduct, Recusal of Counsel, Conflict of Interest
Criminal Law Legal Ethics Prosecutorial Conduct Recusal of Counsel Conflict of Interest

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Curtis Warren

Defendant

Crown Advocate Gollop

Prosecutor

Welsh

Defendant

Liazid

Co Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown Advocate Gollop should be required to withdraw from the case due to alleged misleading of the court and prior representation of a co-defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material evidence that Advocate Gollop misled the court or that his prior representation of Welsh created a conflict of interest; therefore, there were no grounds to require his withdrawal.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Advocate Gollop is entitled to continue as prosecutor.