AG -v- Goss [2005] JRC 082 (08 June 2005)

AG -v- Goss [2005] JRC 082 (08 June 2005)

Expert evidence from both psychologist and psychiatrist is admissible as it relates to characteristics relevant to provocation and is not limited to cases of mental illness. Specific aspects of the reports (hearsay from the defendant's brother, opinion on amnesia, symbolic interpretation) are admissible with appropriate caution to the jury. Evidence of the prior malicious damage incident and immediate aftermath is admissible as relevant background to the relationship and provocation, but evidence of the victim's fear and attendance at the Women's Refuge is excluded as too indirect and prejudicial.

Citation
[2005] JRC 082
Parties
Defendant: Defendant (unnamed); Prosecution: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
08 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application to admit expert evidence granted with guidance; application to admit prior incident evidence granted in part; certain background evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Provocation, Background Evidence, Hearsay, Prejudicial Vs Probative Value
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Provocation Background Evidence Hearsay 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Defendant (unnamed)

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert psychological and psychiatric evidence is admissible regarding the defendant's characteristics relevant to provocation
  2. 2 Whether specific aspects of expert reports (hearsay, opinion on amnesia, symbolic interpretation) are admissible
  3. 3 Whether evidence of prior incidents (malicious damage, relationship background) is admissible and not unduly prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

Expert evidence from both psychologist and psychiatrist is admissible as it relates to characteristics relevant to provocation and is not limited to cases of mental illness. Specific aspects of the reports (hearsay from the defendant's brother, opinion on amnesia, symbolic interpretation) are admissible with appropriate caution to the jury. Evidence of the prior malicious damage incident and immediate aftermath is admissible as relevant background to the relationship and provocation, but evidence of the victim's fear and attendance at the Women's Refuge is excluded as too indirect and prejudicial.

Court Disposition

Application to admit expert evidence granted with guidance; application to admit prior incident evidence granted in part; certain background evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Expert evidence from Professor Gudjonsson and Professor Eastman to be admitted, subject to guidance on scope and presentation.
  • Evidence of the malicious damage incident and immediate aftermath to be admitted.