Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Culkin [2001] JRC 225 (07 November 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_225.html
Cite as: [2001] JRC 225

[New search] [Help]

2001/225

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

7^th November 2001

Before:

Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, sitting alone.

The Attorney General

-v-

Maria Ann Culkin

5 counts of:

acquisition, possession or use of property, representing proceeds of drug trafficking, contrary to Article 17A(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law, 1988 (counts 1-5 inclusive).

Following a plea of not guilty to the above counts on 3^rd August, 2001, the Defendant was remanded for trial before the Inferior Number of the Royal Court "en police correctionnelle". The trial will open on 18^th November, 2001.

Preliminary application by the Defendant for an order excluding tapes of an alleged conversation.

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

Advocate M.L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1. I have been asked to rule on the question of the admissibility of certain tape recordings resulting from the placing of a listening device in the premises: Flat 3, Mountwise, St. Helier, between 3^rd and 17^th September, 1998. It is common ground that this flat was leased to the accused and occupied by her and her boyfriend, Anthony Reynolds, otherwise known as Draper, who is a convicted drugs trafficker now serving a long sentence of imprisonment.

2. Counsel for the accused submits that it is not possible to say with certainty who was in the flat at the material time and whether the female voice which is heard is that of the accused. Counsel also submits that the evidence of DC Grieve, who interviewed the accused at the end of 2000, that he heard only one female voice on the tape and that that voice was that of the accused, is suspect for a number of reasons. Counsel submits that there was no voice identification parade, and that the question and answer interview conducted by DC Grieve was a stressful situation for the accused which might have affected her voice. Counsel further submits that the accused and the males in the flat had strong regional accents. They all came from the Liverpool area and that, too, makes identification of particular voices more difficult.

3. The Crown Advocate submits that all these matters go to weight rather than to admissibility. It is sufficient for me to state that I accept that submission. Nothing that I have heard from counsel for the accused persuades me that the evidence of the tape recordings is inadmissible. The criticisms and submissions which have been made go to weight and should ultimately be a matter for the tribunal of fact. I accordingly reject the submissions of the accused and find that the tape recordings are admissible in evidence.

Authorities

R-v-Hersey [1998] Cr.L.R. 281 CA.

R-v-Ali; R-v-Hussain (1966) 1 QB 688 CCA.