AG v McConnachie [2002] JRC 46A (27 February 2002)

AG v McConnachie [2002] JRC 46A (27 February 2002)

The Defence failed to give notice of its intention to call expert evidence as soon as practicable, as required by Rule 3(1). The absence of a written report does not excuse non-compliance. Granting leave under Rule 6 would prejudice the Crown and is not appropriate in the circumstances.

Citation
[2002] JRC 46A
Parties
Applicant: Defence; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
27 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Notice Requirements, Criminal Procedure (notice of Expert Evidence) (jersey) Rules, 2000
Criminal Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Notice Requirements Criminal Procedure (notice of Expert Evidence) (jersey) Rules, 2000

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Defence

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence complied with Rule 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Notice of Expert Evidence) (Jersey) Rules, 2000 regarding notice of expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted under Rule 6 to adduce expert evidence despite non-compliance with notice requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Defence failed to give notice of its intention to call expert evidence as soon as practicable, as required by Rule 3(1). The absence of a written report does not excuse non-compliance. Granting leave under Rule 6 would prejudice the Crown and is not appropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Leave to call Dr. Wade as an expert witness is refused.