Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC143

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

10^th July 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Curtis Warren

John Alan Welsh

James O'Brien

Jason Woodward

Paul Hunt

Oliver Lucas

Curtis Warren acting on his own behalf.

Advocate S. E. Fitz for Welsh.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for O'Brien.

Advocate D. Gilbert for Woodward.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Hunt.

Advocate M. L. Preston for Lucas.

H. Sharp, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro, as an amicus to the Court.

Reasons relating to documentation to be placed before the Jury.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        A number of propositions emerged from the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in this matter.  Firstly, that the transcripts of extracts of recordings can be provided to the jury; there was never any serious opposition to that suggestion.  Secondly, that I am not precluded as a matter of law from allowing any commentary to the surveillance schedule going in.  Thirdly, there is no question of law which excludes that commentary going in but it is all a matter of case management for my decision.  Fourthly, it is a matter for me to make my own decision as to what material is included in this working document which goes before the jury.  And fifthly, that it is now a matter for me to reconsider my ruling.  I quote from a number of passages in the Court of Appeal's decision, Warren and Others [2009] JCA135 paragraph 89:-

"There is no question of law in the present matter which could have led the Commissioner to feel constrained to exclude the commentary, times, dates, identity of speakers and the other matters objected to by the Defence.  These are all case management matters for the Commissioner to determine and are properly considered during a preparatory hearing."

At paragraph 90:-

"There are many advantages in assisting comprehension for a Jury in having the kind of document proposed by the Crown.  Such a document is not evidence.  It is put before the Jury as a working tool to assist in their understanding of the issues in the case."

And a little later:-

"In our view it is a matter for the judge to make his own decision as to how this document should be put before the Court in relation to the management of the trial."

And in the latter part of paragraph 91:-

"This is not a matter now for the Court of Appeal to decide but under Article 84(4)(b) the Commissioner should be invited to reconsider his ruling in relation to matters, not restricted to the evidence apparent from the recorded transcript, since it is clear to us that the Commissioner is not restricted by the rules of evidence in relation to the nature and form of explanatory material or working schedules that may be placed before a jury."

And at paragraph 93:-

"Although the form of the transcript working document is in our view a matter of case management and not properly the subject of an appeal, the Commissioner, who, apparently, felt constrained as a matter of law to make some of the rulings he did, gave leave."

That was as to the appeal. 

2.        Against those passages and having in mind the propositions to which I earlier referred which are supported by the Court of Appeal's ruling, I now make it clear, as the Court of Appeal appreciated, that I regretted having to make the rulings that I did.  I was mistaken in regarding them as matters of law in so far as I did, and so far as they contain material which I ruled out as being inadmissible or which has been agreed as being inadmissible and irrelevant, my rulings stand.  Those passages are clear to everyone concerned in the case.  They refer to inadmissible evidence and to specific references to slang, but matters of explanatory commentary, such as identification of the speaker and references to timings, dates or locations and other matters of commentary can be included, not as matters of evidence but as a matter of case management as a working document in order to assist the jury in following the evidence.  It will be made plain for the jury that the document does fall into that category; the evidence will be anything they hear played by way of audio surveillance recordings.  The document is not in itself evidence but it is a tool to assist the jury in following the evidence.  That I shall make clear if it is not already done so by Crown Advocate Sharp.

Authorities

Warren and Others [2009] JCA135.