AG -v- R [2017] JRC 173 (19 October 2017)

AG -v- R [2017] JRC 173 (19 October 2017)

With the exception of the pornographic magazine, the background evidence (images and wife's testimony) is admissible as its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect and is necessary for the jury to understand the context and relationship between the defendant and the complainant. The magazine is excluded as its probative value is doubtful and it is prejudicial.

Citation
[2017] JRC 173
Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence granted in part.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Background Evidence, Similar Fact Evidence, Prejudicial Vs Probative Value
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Background Evidence Similar Fact Evidence Prejudicial Vs Probative Value

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain background evidence (images, testimony, magazine) should be excluded as prejudicial or inadmissible in the prosecution for indecent assault.

Ratio Decidendi

With the exception of the pornographic magazine, the background evidence (images and wife's testimony) is admissible as its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect and is necessary for the jury to understand the context and relationship between the defendant and the complainant. The magazine is excluded as its probative value is doubtful and it is prejudicial.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence granted in part.

Orders

  • Evidence of the pornographic magazine '18eighteen' is excluded.
  • Other challenged background evidence is admissible.