Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC075

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th April 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Gordon Claude Wateridge

Ruling in respect of joining the Indictments and adjourning the Assize trial.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        In this case the Prosecution applied to join to the existing Indictment a further Indictment containing a number of Counts with a different complainant.  She came forward to the Police on 27^th February, 2008, to say that she had been a resident, as a child, in Haut de la Garenne and that she was indecently assaulted by a male staff member.  She did not give any name, and indeed does not now attribute any particular name other than other than to say that she remembers the name Wateridge but could not remember if that was the house parent or if it was the person running the home.  At all events, as her later statement indicated, she was able to give enough detail about where the man she said had indecently assaulted her was living within the complex and various other details which would show that the allegation is one that is made against Mr Wateridge.  He denies those allegations as he does the others. 

2.        It was no fault of hers that it was not until 1^st April that finally the police got round to interviewing her in full.  It then became clear that her allegations are in line with the existing allegations, that she was in the home at the same time as some of the others, and indeed knew other members of the C family apart from those who appear as the complainants in Counts 1 to 5, and is making allegations of a similar kind at exactly the same time as these other complainants.  Clearly therefore the Counts would be properly joined and it has not been suggested that they could not properly be tried together and indeed ought properly to be tried together.

3.        In my judgment these Counts ought to be joined, subject to the argument by Advocate Preston that it is too late and that the trial that should take place today should go ahead absent these allegations.  There is no doubt whatsoever that it is extremely unfortunate if we are unable to continue with the trial today, most of us will simply suffer some professional inconvenience but Mr Wateridge, to some extent, and the Witnesses in the present case, to a great extent, will suffer the difficulty of having screwed up their courage to give evidence in difficult circumstances only to find that whereas they thought in a week's time it would all be over and they could get on with their lives, that they cannot because they would have to wait till a date later in the year.  They are in a worse position than Mr Wateridge because he, in any event, is going to have to wait the outcome of what would be a second trial of the allegations relating to this complainant so his position is not quite as bad as theirs.  There is the additional factor that at least two of the Witnesses are coming from abroad, one from a very long way away indeed. 

4.        In my judgment justice requires these Counts to be tried together.  I entirely accept Advocate Preston's argument that he has not had time properly to prepare a defence.  He had, he says, and I completely accept this, effectively two working days, which is nowhere near enough, to analyse the statements against him and see what enquires need to be made to rebut them on his client's behalf.

5.        All those thing being so, in my judgment, greatly regrettable though it is, this trial cannot start today with all of the Counts.  All of the Counts should be tried together and accordingly the trial will have to be adjourned and we will find a date later in the year when all of us can be present in order to try the full Indictment.

No Authorities