AG v Anthony (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal)) [2025] JRC 021 (21 January 2025)

AG v Anthony (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal)) [2025] JRC 021 (21 January 2025)

The 999 call and the initial part of the body worn camera footage were admissible as res gestae because they were made in circumstances dominated by the event, excluding the possibility of concoction. The later footage and notebook entry were not admissible as res gestae due to opportunity for reflection. The bad character evidence was not admissible as important explanatory evidence or propensity because it would unfairly prejudice the defendant, lacked independent corroboration, and would distract the jury from the main issue.

Citation
[2025] JRC 021
Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Defendant: Defendant; Complainant: Complainant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application for admission of certain hearsay evidence granted in part; application for admission of bad character evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Res Gestae, Bad Character Evidence, Propensity, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Res Gestae Bad Character Evidence Propensity Fair Trial

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Complainant

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of hearsay evidence as res gestae
  2. 2 Admissibility of bad character evidence under Articles 82E-82I
  3. 3 Whether admission of bad character evidence would adversely affect fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The 999 call and the initial part of the body worn camera footage were admissible as res gestae because they were made in circumstances dominated by the event, excluding the possibility of concoction. The later footage and notebook entry were not admissible as res gestae due to opportunity for reflection. The bad character evidence was not admissible as important explanatory evidence or propensity because it would unfairly prejudice the defendant, lacked independent corroboration, and would distract the jury from the main issue.

Court Disposition

Application for admission of certain hearsay evidence granted in part; application for admission of bad character evidence refused.

Orders

  • 999 call and initial body worn camera footage admitted as res gestae evidence.
  • Later body worn camera footage and notebook entry excluded as hearsay.