AG v Withe [2023] JRC 125 (20 July 2023)

AG v Withe [2023] JRC 125 (20 July 2023)

The officer in the case was permitted to remain in court as there was no substantive challenge to her evidence. The complainant was allowed to see her IDVA but not a friend while screened from the public and defendant. The defendant's prior conviction for common assault was admissible under Article 82G after the defence attacked the complainant's character, and exclusion was not justified. The defence's late application to adduce hearsay evidence through the defendant's mother was refused as not in the interests of justice and of limited probative value.

Citation
[2023] JRC 125
Parties
Prosecution: Attorney General; Defendant: Withe
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Conviction, Rulings on Evidentiary Issues During Trial
Outcome
Rulings on evidentiary issues delivered; officer allowed to remain, partial screening for complainant allowed, prior conviction admitted, hearsay application refused.
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Witness Protection, Domestic Violence, Trial Procedure
Criminal Law Evidence Bad Character Evidence Hearsay Evidence Witness Protection Domestic Violence Trial Procedure

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

Attorney General

Prosecution

Withe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Conviction, Rulings on Evidentiary Issues During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer in the case may remain in court during trial while also being a witness
  2. 2 Whether the complainant may be screened from the public and the defendant while giving evidence, and whether support persons may be visible
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution may adduce the defendant's prior conviction for common assault under Article 82G of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence Law (Jersey) 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The officer in the case was permitted to remain in court as there was no substantive challenge to her evidence. The complainant was allowed to see her IDVA but not a friend while screened from the public and defendant. The defendant's prior conviction for common assault was admissible under Article 82G after the defence attacked the complainant's character, and exclusion was not justified. The defence's late application to adduce hearsay evidence through the defendant's mother was refused as not in the interests of justice and of limited probative value.

Court Disposition

Rulings on evidentiary issues delivered; officer allowed to remain, partial screening for complainant allowed, prior conviction admitted, hearsay application refused.

Orders

  • Officer in the case permitted to remain in court during trial.
  • Complainant allowed to see IDVA but not friend while screened from public and defendant.