Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC060H

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

3^rd April 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Curtis Warren

John Alan Welsh

James O'Brien

Jason Woodward

Paul Hunt

Oliver Lucas

Ruling on visits to Warren by Liazid and Vatandas.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate assisted by Advocate D. S. Steenson.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for Welsh.

Advocate E. Le Guillou for O'Brien.

Advocate D. Gilbert for Woodward.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Hunt.

Advocate M. L. Preston for Lucas.

Curtis Warren acting on his own behalf.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro as an amicus to the Court.

RULING

THE commisioner:

1.        The next matter I have to rule upon concerns the question of prison visits to the defendant Warren by the two men I have already mentioned, Liazid and Vatandas. 

2.        I have received submissions on this topic from the Crown and advice from the amicus.  The Crown seeks to adduce evidence of prison records detailing visits to the defendant Warren while he was in custody in Holland by a number of persons including Liazid and Vatandas. 

3.        The reason for doing so is that it is said to constitute evidence of association with Liazid and Vatandas which is contended to be an important matter linking the defendant Warren to the conspiracy.  Another reason is to prove that Warren had not seen his girlfriend, Kimberley Lockley, for at least 4 months prior to his entering Jersey, and that it is, therefore say the Crown, significant that he should spend so much time in Welsh's company after arriving here.  I am less concerned with that aspect of the matter than with the previous one.

4.        There is an obvious risk of prejudice to the defendant Warren by the admission of evidence showing, or tending to show, that he is a person of previous of bad character.  Therefore it must be demonstrated that the evidence is relevant and probative to a degree which outweighs its prejudicial effect.  The Crown are of course aware of this and have sought to overcome the problem by seeking admissions from the defendant Warren in a form which would avoid reference to his previous incarceration.  I have pointed out to him, in open Court, the advantages to him of adopting this course but I understand that he is not minded to make any admissions.  If there is any reference to previous incarcerations I shall do my best to overcome the risk of prejudice by a suitable direction to the Jury at the appropriate time. 

5.        The Crown submit that no reason has been given for disputing the contents of the records and that there are no reasonable grounds for doing so.  They submit that the evidence is important to the Crown's case and highly probative of Warren's role and involvement in the conspiracy.  The amicus concedes that the evidence has some relevance but advises that I should weigh up the need for it and points to its great prejudicial effect.  Advocate Preston asked me to consider the impact of the evidence on other defendants.  The defendant Warren, for his part, has declined to address me despite my invitation to do so.

6.        The records referred to are of all prison visits made to Warren between the 1^st March, 2007 and his release date the 14^th June, 2007 i.e. only 6 days prior to his visit to Jersey referred to in an earlier ruling.  It appears from the advice of the amicus that the evidence was all obtained pursuant to a letter of request dated 25^th July, 2007.  The statements were produced, or received, by holders of paid or unpaid office and therefore fall to be considered under the provisions of Article 65 of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.  I have read and had regard to those and subsequent provisions.  The authenticity of the documents has not been challenged and I have no reason to doubt it, I have considered whether the evidence is otherwise readily available and in particular whether the Crown can or should call Miss Lockley as a witness, insofar as that aspect of the matter is thought to be relevant.

7.        The evidence is clearly relevant, save, possibly, where it refers to Warren's relationship with Miss Lockley, I see no unfairness in adducing the evidence.  I cannot see how it could be controverted.  Accordingly I propose to admit this evidence.  Meanwhile the Crown should consider whether there are any other methods of adducing the evidence so as to avoid reference to Warren's detention in prison.

Authorities

Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.