AG v Batho [2002] JRC 216 (11 November 2002)

AG v Batho [2002] JRC 216 (11 November 2002)

Evidence of cannabis use by the defendant is logically probative to rebut the defence of lack of knowledge but, in this case, its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value and is excluded. Statements made after the reverse caution regarding finances are excluded due to breach of Code C. Questions regarding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] JRC 216
Parties
Prosecutor: The Attorney General; Defendant: Steven Maurice Batho
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence partially allowed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Drug Offences, Police Interview Procedures, Exclusion of Evidence, Reverse Caution
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Drug Offences Police Interview Procedures Exclusion of Evidence Reverse Caution

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General

Prosecutor

Steven Maurice Batho

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of defendant's cannabis use during police interviews is admissible
  2. 2 Whether statements made after a reverse caution regarding finances should be excluded
  3. 3 Whether questions regarding fingerprints on exhibits were unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of cannabis use by the defendant is logically probative to rebut the defence of lack of knowledge but, in this case, its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value and is excluded. Statements made after the reverse caution regarding finances are excluded due to breach of Code C. Questions regarding fingerprints were fair and admissible.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence partially allowed

Orders

  • Passages of police interviews dealing with cannabis use excluded
  • Financial information obtained after reverse caution excluded