Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/97

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi division)

6^th June, 2000.

Before:   Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff.

IN THE MATTER OF

The Attorney General

-v-

Michael Raymond Powell.

1 count of grave and criminal assault.

Voire Dire:  Application by the Crown for leave to adduce evidence of a video recording of admissions made by the accused in the custody suite at Police Headquarters and evidence of admissions made by the accused, at the telephone, to Julie Stoodley.

T.J. Le Cocq, Esq.,  Crown Advocate

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

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.    This is an application relating to the admissibility of  two pieces of evidence which the Crown seeks to adduce in the trial of Michael Raymond Powell upon a charge of grave and criminal assault.

2.    The first piece of evidence relates to admissions which are said to have been made by the accused whilst the custody procedures at the Police Station were being completed.  It is clear that the accused was not being interviewed, and indeed, the police officers concerned with the case reached the conclusion that at that stage Powell was too drunk to be interviewed and no interview took place until later in the day.

3.    Objection is taken by Mr Pirie, for the accused, to the alleged admissions on the basis that the accused was drunk and that his admissions were therefore unreliable.   Mr Pirie was unable to point to any breach of code C, and indeed went out of his way to emphasis that the police officers concerned behaved with complete propriety throughout the custody process.

4.    Mr Pirie argued, however, that the admissions could be regarded as being inconsistent with the code because the accused was unable to appreciate at that time what he was saying.  Mr Le Cocq,  for the Crown,  cited an extract from Phipson which indicates that an admission made by a party when drunk is not of such weight as one made when sober, but it is still admissible.

5.    There is no question that the admissions were not voluntary.  The admissions are clearly admissible and  in the exercise of my discretion I see no reason to exclude them.

6.    The second piece of evidence relates to the evidence of Miss Stoodley, who asserts that a telephone conversation with the accused took place shortly before he was taken to the police station.   Miss Stoodley would say that the accused had told her that he had "flipped" and that he had hit the victim  "just seeing the bloke's face..." by which he was referring to an alleged argument with the victim about a relationship with another man.

7.    The basis of the objection here is again that in the exercise of my discretion the evidence should be excluded because it is likely that at the material time the accused was drunk.  I reach the same conclusion as I reached in relation to the first piece of  evidence and I decline, in the exercise of my discretion, to exclude the evidence of Miss Stoodley.

Authorities

Phipson on Evidence (15^th Ed'n); pp. 712-3:  Admissions.

Phipson on Evidence (13^th Ed'n); pp. 438-9:  Confessions: Evidence illegally obtained.

Archbold (1999): pp.1378-1423: Police Powers.

States of Jersey Police: Code C:  Code of Practice for Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers.

R -v- Hedges (1910) 3 Cr. App. R 262.