AG v Durkin [2000] JRC 94 (30 May 2000)

AG v Durkin [2000] JRC 94 (30 May 2000)

The evidence regarding the urine sample and the boots is admissible because it was given voluntarily, in fair circumstances, and its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. The financial evidence relating to unexplained expenditure is admissible, but the cash and clothing found on Laurence Durkin are not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] JRC 94
Parties
Defendant: Karen Durkin; Defendant: Laurence Durkin; Prosecution: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
30 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
evidence admitted in part
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Drug Offences, Fair Trial, Financial Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence Drug Offences Fair Trial Financial Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Durkin

Defendant

Laurence Durkin

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urine sample evidence is admissible given alleged prejudice and lack of written consent.
  2. 2 Whether evidence regarding boots containing heroin and financial information is admissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence regarding the urine sample and the boots is admissible because it was given voluntarily, in fair circumstances, and its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. The financial evidence relating to unexplained expenditure is admissible, but the cash and clothing found on Laurence Durkin are not sufficiently probative and are excluded.

Court Disposition

evidence admitted in part

Orders

  • Urine sample evidence admitted.
  • Evidence regarding boots with heroin admitted.