AG v H [2020] JRC 173A (01 September 2020)

AG v H [2020] JRC 173A (01 September 2020)

The defendant's statements to the Assistant Magistrate are admissible as confession evidence because they were not obtained by oppression or in a manner likely to render them unreliable, despite procedural criticisms. The WhatsApp and dating app communications are excluded as insufficiently relevant background evidence. The pornographic search history is excluded under Article 76 as its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, but may become admissible depending on the defendant's evidence at trial.

Citation
[2020] JRC 173A
Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Rulings
Outcome
Partial admission and exclusion of evidence
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confession, Background Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Rape, Sexual Offences, Police Procedure
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Confession Background Evidence Bad Character Evidence Rape Sexual Offences Police Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's statements to the Assistant Magistrate are admissible as confession evidence under Article 74 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003
  2. 2 Whether WhatsApp and dating app communications are admissible as background evidence
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's pornographic search history is admissible as bad character or background evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's statements to the Assistant Magistrate are admissible as confession evidence because they were not obtained by oppression or in a manner likely to render them unreliable, despite procedural criticisms. The WhatsApp and dating app communications are excluded as insufficiently relevant background evidence. The pornographic search history is excluded under Article 76 as its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, but may become admissible depending on the defendant's evidence at trial.

Court Disposition

Partial admission and exclusion of evidence

Orders

  • Admission of defendant's confession to consensual vaginal and anal intercourse before the Assistant Magistrate
  • Exclusion of WhatsApp and dating app communications as background evidence