AG -v- Humble [2018] JRC 086 (14 May 2018)

AG -v- Humble [2018] JRC 086 (14 May 2018)

The 2013 Statement was excluded because it was the sole evidence against the defendant, its reliability was questionable due to Complainant A's acquiescence and lack of understanding, and the defence would face significant difficulties in challenging it, resulting in unfairness and inability to secure a fair trial.

Citation
[2018] JRC 086
Parties
Prosecution: Attorney General; Defendant: Humble
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay, Fair Trial, Vulnerable Witnesses, Exclusion of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Hearsay Fair Trial Vulnerable Witnesses Exclusion 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecution

Humble

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2013 Statement of Complainant A is admissible under Article 64 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003
  2. 2 Whether admitting the 2013 Statement would be in the interests of justice given the defendant's right to a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The 2013 Statement was excluded because it was the sole evidence against the defendant, its reliability was questionable due to Complainant A's acquiescence and lack of understanding, and the defence would face significant difficulties in challenging it, resulting in unfairness and inability to secure a fair trial.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The 2013 Statement of Complainant A is excluded from evidence.
  • Prosecution discontinued following refusal.