AG -v- Cullen [2016] JRC 224 (06 December 2016)

AG -v- Cullen [2016] JRC 224 (06 December 2016)

There are considerable and unusual similarities between the evidence of both complainants, establishing cross-admissibility and a sufficient nexus for joinder. Even absent cross-admissibility, the offences form a series of similar character justifying joinder. Severance is not warranted as fairness to all parties and effective jury directions mitigate any risk of prejudice. The application for Complainant 2 to give evidence from behind a screen is granted as his evidence may be affected by distress, with minimal risk of prejudice to the defendant.

Citation
[2016] JRC 224
Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
06 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Indictment Joinder, Severance of Counts, Similar Fact Evidence, Special Measures for Witnesses
Criminal Law Indictment Joinder Severance of Counts Similar Fact Evidence Special Measures for Witnesses

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Counts 1 and 2 are properly joined with Counts 3 and 4 in the same indictment
  2. 2 Whether Counts 3 and 4 should be severed and tried separately from Counts 1 and 2
  3. 3 Whether Complainant 2 should be permitted to give evidence from behind a screen

Ratio Decidendi

There are considerable and unusual similarities between the evidence of both complainants, establishing cross-admissibility and a sufficient nexus for joinder. Even absent cross-admissibility, the offences form a series of similar character justifying joinder. Severance is not warranted as fairness to all parties and effective jury directions mitigate any risk of prejudice. The application for Complainant 2 to give evidence from behind a screen is granted as his evidence may be affected by distress, with minimal risk of prejudice to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be tried together in the same indictment
  • Application for severance refused