Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/104

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

14^th June, 2000

Before:  M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff,

sitting alone.

IN THE MATTER OF

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Raymond Powell

1 count of grave and criminal assault (count 1);

1 count of prison breaking, contrary to Article 22 of the Prison (Jersey) Law, 1957 (count 2).

[On 3^rd March, 2000, the accused changed his plea of not guilty to count 2, to one of guilty; and on 9^th June, 2000, he changed his plea of not guilty to count 1 to one of guilty].

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

A 'Newton' hearing before the Superior Number in relation to the facts relied on by the prosecution in relation to count 1.

Voire dire: Applications by the Crown: (a) to re-examine Miss Maria Ann Armstrong on the issue of a previous written statement made by her to the accused's former legal advisers, Messrs. Crill Canavan that was inconsistent with her oral evidence to the Court, and (b) to adduce evidence of previous statements made by her to Dr. Fookes and to Dr. Holmes that were consistent with the said oral evidence.

T.J. Le Cocq, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate R.J.F. Pirie for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.            There has been put to the witness, Maria Armstrong, by the defence, a statement which she made on 15^th August, 1999.  That statement is broadly consistent with the version of events being put forward by the defence.

2.            The Crown wish to adduce evidence that on two occasions shortly after the incident the complainant, Maria Armstrong, made statements to Dr. Fookes and Dr. Holmes which were, in the broadest of terms, consistent with the evidence which she has given today, that evidence being inconsistent with the statement which was put to her by the defence.

3.            I have been referred to two authorities on the applicable principles which are R. -v- Oyesiku (1971) Cr. App. R. 240 and Fox -v- General Medical Council (1960) 3 All ER 229 PC.  These show that where a party puts forward that there has been a recent invention or lays the foundation for such an attack, then previous consistent statements may be put in evidence.

4.            Mr. Le Cocq argues that that is the situation here, whereas Mr. Pirie argues that he has not gone that far and has done nothing more than to lay the ground for an attack on the grounds of inconsistency.

5.            It is my judgment that this goes to the heart of the matter and that inevitably, the nature of the defence case will have to be that what she has said today is untrue and incorrect and in that sense is a recent invention.  The authorities I have been referred to have made it clear that the Court does not have to be satisfied that she is deliberately inventing something today.

6.            I think that justice requires that the Jurats should be aware of what she said initially as well as what she said on the 15^th August and I therefore rule that Advocate Le Cocq can ask her questions about her first statement and he may also adduce in evidence the initial complaint that she made to Dr. Fookes and to Dr. Holmes.

Authorities

Fox -v- General Medical Council (1960) 3 All ER 229 PC.

R. -v- Oyesiku (1971) Cr.App.R. 240.