Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/23

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

9^th February, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

                                                        Jurats Quérée and Le Brocq

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Attorney General

-v-

Kevin Travis;

Sean Culkin; and

Paul Munro

 

On 26^th November, 1999, the accused were indicted before the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on the following counts:

 

KEVIN TRAVIS

 

2 counts of:  conspiracy to contravene Article 77(b) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972 by being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug:

                    count 1: cannabis resin;

                    count 2: amphetamine.

 

2 counts of:  supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 4: amphetamine;

                    count 5: cannabis resin.

 

The accused pleaded not guilty, and was remanded in custody with a £10,000 bail option to take his trial on the common law offences (counts 1 & 2) at an Assize trial fixed for 13^th March, 2000.

 

SEAN CULKIN

 

3 counts of:  conspiracy to contravene Article 77(b) of the Customs & Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972 by being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug:

                    count 1: cannabis resin;

                    count 2: amphetamine;

                    count 3: cocaine.

 

1 count of:   supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 6: amphetamine.

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 7: cannabis resin.

 

The accused pleaded not guilty, except for count 7, to which he pleaded guilty and was remanded in custody with a £10,000 bail option to take his trial on the common law offences (counts 1, 2 & 3) at an Assize trial fixed for 13^th March, 2000.

 

PAUL MUNRO

 

3 counts of:  conspiracy to contravene Article 77(b) of the Customs & Excise (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1972 by being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug::

                    count 1: cannabis resin;

                    count 2: amphetamine;

                    count 3: cocaine.

 

1 count of:   being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 8: amphetamine;

 

1 count of:   knowingly permitting the smoking of cannabis resin, as occupier of premises, contrary to Article 9(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 9.

 

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

                    count 10: cannabis resin.

 

The accused pleaded not guilty, except for count 10, to which he pleaded guilty and was remanded in custody with a £10,000 bail option to take his trial on the common law offences (counts 1, 2 & 3) at an Assize trial fixed for 13^th March, 2000.

 

Representation of Sean Culkin applying for:

 

(1)   vacation of Assize trial date fixed for 13^th March, 2000, and fixing of new date: 30^th May, 2000;

 

(2)   an Order that the Crown produce forthwith a set of tape recordings to counsel for each of the accused; and

 

(3)   an Order directing the Judicial Greffier to authorise a payment out of the legal aid fund for the instruction of English counsel by the accused.

 

C.E. Whelan, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate S.E. Fitz for K. Travis;

Advocate J.C. Gollop for S. Culkin;

Advocate A.D. Robinson for P. Munro.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:  Defence counsel have made three applications in relation to this pending trial.  The first concerns all the members of the Court.  The second and third applications give rise to matters of law and concern only the presiding Judge.

 

The first application is for an adjournment of the trial from 13^th March to 30^th May, 2000.  The basis of the application is that very complicated matters arise in the context of possible arguments on entrapment and agent provocateurs and the law of conspiracy and that very substantial amounts of material, including 18 tapes, are involved and require consideration.

 

Mr. Gollop for Culkin in particular stressed the difficulties with which he was faced having regard to his relatively late involvement in the case.  The Crown opposed the application on the basis that the date was fixed five months ago but conceded that while inconvenient an adjournment would cause no substantial embarrassment to the prosecution.

 

Balancing the opposing arguments, we propose to grant the application and the trial will accordingly begin on Tuesday, 30^th May, 2000.  Administrative arrangements will be made, however, to retain at least some of the days fixed for the original trial for the hearing of any preliminary legal arguments.  In that connection I propose to ask my secretary to arrange a meeting with all counsel in the week beginning Monday, 21^st February to ascertain what issues might need to be considered and I hope that counsel will be able to make themselves available.

 

So far as the second application is concerned, that is the application for defence counsel to be given custody of copies of the tapes relating to conversations between undercover police officers and the accused, I drew attention in open Court to the fact that certain matters relating to public interest immunity involving the safety of the undercover police officers were drawn to my attention ex parte in Chambers by the Crown Advocate.  Defence counsel had been placed on notice of that ex parte application by the Crown.

 

I have taken account of those matters and of all the submissions made by counsel in open Court.  I am not persuaded that the arguments put forward for the furnishing of copies of the tapes in this case are compelling.  Arrangements have been made by the Crown for defence counsel and for the defendants to have access to the tapes in two different places and having regard to all the matters which I have to take into account, this application is refused.

 

The third application is for the Court to order or alternatively to give an indication that English counsel should be appointed to assist counsel and that the costs of instructing English counsel should be met from the legal aid fund.  Some of the submissions proceeded upon the misapprehension that it was for the Bâtonnier to direct that an appointment be made at the expense of the legal aid fund.  It appears to me, however, that the administrative arrangements are made by the officer of the Court in administering a specific budget provided by the Treasury.  The proper judicial officer has already given consideration to the arguments put forward by counsel and has reached a decision on the matter.  I do not propose, even if I had the power to do so, which I doubt, to disturb that decision and that application is also accordingly refused.

Authorities

 

 

Loi (1864) réglant la procédure criminelle.

 

Loi (1982) (Amendment No. 3) réglant la procédure criminelle.

 

In re Representation of Ogden (1992) JLR 106.