AG -v- U [2011] JRC 124 (24 July 2011)

AG -v- U [2011] JRC 124 (24 July 2011)

The probative value of the prosecution's evidence, which demonstrates the defendant's prior involvement with indecent images of children at times when BB could not have been responsible, is sufficiently high to justify its admission to rebut the anticipated defence. The evidence is not admitted to show propensity but to directly counter the defence's case theory.

Citation
[2011] JRC 124
Parties
Prosecution: The Prosecution; Defendant: The Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
24 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application granted; evidence admitted.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Similar Fact Evidence, Propensity Evidence, Child Pornography Offences
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Similar Fact Evidence Propensity Evidence Child Pornography Offences

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Prosecution

Prosecution

The Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prejudicial evidence of prior acts and similar fact evidence is admissible to rebut a potential defence that another person was responsible for the indecent images found on the defendant's computer.

Ratio Decidendi

The probative value of the prosecution's evidence, which demonstrates the defendant's prior involvement with indecent images of children at times when BB could not have been responsible, is sufficiently high to justify its admission to rebut the anticipated defence. The evidence is not admitted to show propensity but to directly counter the defence's case theory.

Court Disposition

Application granted; evidence admitted.

Orders

  • The prosecution is permitted to adduce the identified evidence at trial.
  • The defendant is remanded in custody for trial.