ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
8 September 1998
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and a Jury
AG
-v-
William Swanston
In the matter of the trial before the Assise Criminelle, following a not guilty plea to:
1 count of grave and criminal assault.
Application by the accused, in the absence of the Jury, that evidence of intimidation of himself, his wife and other witnesses was relevant to the facts in issue before the Jury, and that the Defendant should be permitted to ask questions of the witnesses on such matters.
AR Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate JD Kelleher for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: Defence counsel has indicated a wish to lead evidence of intimidation of defence witnesses. The fundamental principle of the law of evidence is that questions put to witnesses must be relevant to facts which are in issue. The facts in issue in this case are the circumstances surrounding what took place in ‘Churchills’ bar in Bath Street at the material time on 12 August 1997. It has not been suggested that the prosecution evidence has been tainted by intimidation. The suggestion is that defence witnesses have been intimidated but the defence witnesses who are giving evidence have clearly not been prevented by any alleged threats, or by any alleged conduct from giving their evidence. They are here and they will be able to give their evidence to the Jury. It is not being alleged by the defence that defence witnesses have been intimidated into giving false evidence.
I therefore propose to disallow as irrelevant any questions relating to alleged intimidation of the defence witnesses.
No Authorities