AG v Steel and Anor [2003] JRC 172B (06 October 2003)

AG v Steel and Anor [2003] JRC 172B (06 October 2003)

The police were at fault for not retaining the CCTV evidence and failing to respond to defence requests, but their conduct did not reach the level of serious fault or bad faith required for a category 2 abuse of process. The absence of CCTV evidence did not render a fair trial impossible, as there was no clear evidence that the footage would have assisted the defence, and the trial process could address the issue. Therefore, the application for a stay was refused.

Citation
[2003] JRC 172B
Parties
Applicant's Advocate: Mr Le Cornu; Applicant's Advocate: Mr Cadin; Defendant: Mr Steel; Respondent's Advocate: Mr Belhomme
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
06 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for stay refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Disclosure of Evidence, CCTV Evidence, Fair Trial, Stay of Proceedings
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Abuse of Process Disclosure of Evidence CCTV Evidence Fair Trial Stay of Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Le Cornu

Applicant's Advocate

Mr Cadin

Applicant's Advocate

Mr Steel

Defendant

Mr Belhomme

Respondent's Advocate

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process due to unavailability of CCTV evidence
  2. 2 Whether the absence of CCTV evidence renders a fair trial impossible
  3. 3 Whether the police failure to retain CCTV evidence constitutes serious fault or bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The police were at fault for not retaining the CCTV evidence and failing to respond to defence requests, but their conduct did not reach the level of serious fault or bad faith required for a category 2 abuse of process. The absence of CCTV evidence did not render a fair trial impossible, as there was no clear evidence that the footage would have assisted the defence, and the trial process could address the issue. Therefore, the application for a stay was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused

Orders

  • Proceedings are to continue to trial