Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/221

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

22^nd November 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Philip William Baglin

FIRST INDICTMENT

SECOND INDICTMENT

THIRD INDICTMENT

On 13^th September, 2002, the Defendant pleaded guilty to the First and Second Indictments and not guilty to the Third.  The Court adjourned the prosecution in respect of the First and Second Indictments and in respect of count 2 of the Third Indictment until after the conclusion of the Criminal Assize trial (to commence on 9^th December, 2002) on Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Third Indictment.

Application by the Defendant to adjourn count 5 of the Third Indictment until after the conclusion of the Criminal Assize.

N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is an application by counsel for Philip William Baglin seeking an order staying Count 5 of the Indictment laid against him, which alleges that he committed the offence of affray on the 19^th May, 2002, at the Weighbridge.

2.        The Indictment charges other offences and in particular count 2 alleges that he had with him, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, in a public place an offensive weapon, namely a lock-knife.  Count 3 alleges that he committed a grave and criminal assault upon a young man by holding the knife at his throat and threatening him with violence.  Count 4 alleges an assault upon a woman on the same occasion by directing the knife towards her.

3.        Advocate Juste submits that the indictment is overloaded and that the count of affray might cause confusion in the minds of the jury.  Counsel has submitted that there are circumstances in which the jury might find that the accused was not guilty of the assaults but, nevertheless, guilty of affray. 

4.        I accept that submission as a matter of theory, but I must say that I find it difficult to envisage that in practice on the facts of this case as I understand them the jury would wish to reach such a conclusion.  Crown Advocate Costa has told me that no witness for the prosecution will say that the knife was not directed against any individual.  Crown Advocate Costa has submitted that the jury might conceivably infer such circumstances from the evidence if the jury were not minded to accept that the knife had been directed at the two individuals as alleged in counts 3 and 4.

5.        Taken in the round, it seems to me that the count of affray adds little to the counts of grave and criminal assault and common assault and could well give rise to unnecessary complications in summing up to the jury.  In consequence it seems to me that confusion could be caused to the jury which would not be in the interests of the accused nor indeed in the interests of justice. 

6.        I accordingly direct that count 5 on the indictment be held on file pending the outcome of the trial before the jury of counts 2, 3 and 4.

Authorities

Button -v - DPP & Ors [1966] AC 591.

Taylor -v- DPP [1973] A.C. 964.

DPP -v- I [2000] Cr. L.R. 45.

Blackstones Criminal Practice (2001 Ed'n): D.9-33; pp.1293-5.

R-v- Pulham & Pulham [1995] Cr. L.R. 296.