AG -v- McKeegans [2018] JRC 063 (23 March 2018)

AG -v- McKeegans [2018] JRC 063 (23 March 2018)

The statements made by Victim A and Victim C on police body worn camera footage were made in circumstances of spontaneity and involvement in the events, such that the risk of concoction or distortion is excluded; therefore, the evidence is admissible under the res gestae exception to hearsay. The evidence relating to Victim A is not excluded under Article 76, but the question of exclusion for Victim C is adjourned pending further information on her willingness to testify and the prosecution's stance.

Citation
[2018] JRC 063
Parties
Applicant: Prosecution; Respondent: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application granted in part, adjourned in part
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Res Gestae, Article 76 Exclusion, Body Worn Camera Footage
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Res Gestae Article 76 Exclusion Body Worn Camera Footage

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosecution

Applicant

Defendant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by Victim A and Victim C recorded on police body worn camera footage are admissible as res gestae hearsay evidence
  2. 2 Whether such evidence should be excluded under Article 76 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 due to potential unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The statements made by Victim A and Victim C on police body worn camera footage were made in circumstances of spontaneity and involvement in the events, such that the risk of concoction or distortion is excluded; therefore, the evidence is admissible under the res gestae exception to hearsay. The evidence relating to Victim A is not excluded under Article 76, but the question of exclusion for Victim C is adjourned pending further information on her willingness to testify and the prosecution's stance.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, adjourned in part

Orders

  • Evidence of statements made by Victim A on PC Campbell's body worn camera footage is admissible and not excluded under Article 76, subject to editing the footage to exclude the initial hallway scene.
  • Evidence of statements made by Victim C on PC Luis's body worn camera footage is admissible in principle, but the decision on exclusion under Article 76 is adjourned pending further evidence regarding her willingness to testify and the prosecution's position.