AG v Warren, Welsh, O'Brien, Woodward, Hunt and Lucas

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: Sir Richard Tucker
• Judgment Date: 10 July 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] JRC 142
• Date: 10 July 2009

[2009] JRC 142

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

Before:

Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner sitting alone.

The Attorney General

and

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.

Authorities

Warren and Others v AG [2009] JCA 135.

Ruling on Abuse of Process.

THE COMMISSIONER:

1 I take the view that it is perfectly proper for Crown Advocate Sharp to appear as Prosecutor in this case. He did feature in the abuse of process proceedings, those proceedings are no longer relevant, and I shall not allow any reference to them to be made in the course of the trial. They have no absolutely no relevance to the proceedings. In that matter I made my ruling, the Court of Appeal upheld me on that ruling and accordingly, I now make it clear, as the Court of Appeal appreciated at paragraph 91 of their Judgment, ( Warren and Others -v- AG [2009] JCA 135), that the abuse of process proceedings are now quite irrelevant and cannot be referred to.

2 My decision was upheld by a differently constituted division of the Court of Appeal on a previous occasion. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal makes it plain, if the matter required clarification, that the Defence may not re-open on what they have failed to do in the abuse of process application which would have no relevance at the trial, (paragraph 100 of the recent Court of Appeal Judgment).

3 The Court of Appeal also reminded me that it would be my duty to stop any line of cross-examination which had no possible bearing on any issue properly raised at the trial and that was calculated to achieve no more than embarrassment, obstruction or delay; see paragraph 103 of their decision. I hope I have my position quite clear. I am not going to allow any reference to the abuse of process proceedings which have been over and firmly dealt with and therefore, I can see no possible objection to the appearance of Crown Advocate Sharp as Crown Advocate in this prosecution.