AG v Goodchild and Mazurke [2023] JRC 188 (19 October 2023)

AG v Goodchild and Mazurke [2023] JRC 188 (19 October 2023)

The caution for breach of the peace was not of substantial probative value in relation to an issue of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, as the complainant's conduct was undisputed and not central to the dispute; therefore, the evidence was not admissible.

Citation
[2023] JRC 188
Parties
Prosecutor: The Attorney General; Defendant: Mark Goodchild; Defendant: Addison Mazurke
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Conviction, Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Admissibility, Credibility of Witness
Criminal Law Evidence Bad Character Evidence Admissibility Credibility of Witness

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General

Prosecutor

Mark Goodchild

Defendant

Addison Mazurke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Conviction, Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the caution for breach of the peace recorded against the complainant is admissible as bad character evidence under Article 82J(1)(b) of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The caution for breach of the peace was not of substantial probative value in relation to an issue of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, as the complainant's conduct was undisputed and not central to the dispute; therefore, the evidence was not admissible.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The caution for breach of the peace recorded against the complainant is not admitted as evidence.