AG -v- T [2014] JRC 039 (13 February 2014)

AG -v- T [2014] JRC 039 (13 February 2014)

The evidence of Witness A is highly probative and not outweighed by prejudicial effect; collusion concerns are for the jury. The Crown's discretion not to call Witness B is not exercised wrongly in principle and will not be overridden.

Citation
[2014] JRC 039
Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Defendant: Defendant; Complainant: Complainant; Witness: Witness A; Witness: Witness B
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
Application to exclude Witness A's evidence refused; application to override Crown's discretion not to call Witness B refused.
Legal Topics
Similar Fact Evidence, Prosecutorial Discretion, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Similar Fact Evidence Prosecutorial Discretion Admissibility of Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Complainant

Complainant

Witness A

Witness

Witness B

Witness

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether similar fact evidence from Witness A should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the court should override the Crown's discretion not to call Witness B

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Witness A is highly probative and not outweighed by prejudicial effect; collusion concerns are for the jury. The Crown's discretion not to call Witness B is not exercised wrongly in principle and will not be overridden.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude Witness A's evidence refused; application to override Crown's discretion not to call Witness B refused.

Orders

  • Witness A's evidence is admitted.
  • Witness B will be made available for Defence if required.