Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Curtis Warren case judgement

Curtis Warren case judgement

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,007|Likes:
Published by Echo Newsroom
Full judgement by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Curtis Warren and others v Her Majesty's Attorney General for the Bailiwick of Jersey
Full judgement by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Curtis Warren and others v Her Majesty's Attorney General for the Bailiwick of Jersey

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Echo Newsroom on Mar 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

03/28/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
[2011] UKPC
 
10
Privy Council Appeal No 0111 of 2009
JUDGMENTCurtis Francis Warren and others
v
Her Majesty'sAttorney General of the Bailiwick of Jersey
From the Court of Appeal of Jersey
before
Lord HopeLord RodgerLord BrownLord KerrLord Dyson
 
JUDGMENT DELIVERED BYLord DysonON28 March 2011
 
Heard on 9 and 10 February 2011
 
 
 
Appellant Respondent 
Orlando Pownall QC David Farrer QCStephen Baker (JerseyBar)Nigel Povoas(Instructed by Baker andPartners)(Instructed by Baker &McKenzie LLP)
 
 
Page 1
LORD DYSON:
Introduction
1.
 
On 7 October 2009, the appellants were convicted of conspiracy to import intoJersey 180 kg of cannabis, a class B controlled drug. The drugs had a street value inexcess of £1m. Curtis Warren, who masterminded the conspiracy, was sentenced to13 years’ imprisonment. John Welsh, whose involvement it will be necessary todescribe in more detail, was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. James O’Brien wassentenced to 10 years’ and the other appellants each to 5 years’ imprisonment.2.
 
In March 2008, there had been a preparatory hearing before Sir Richard Tuckersitting as a Commissioner. The appellants applied for a stay of the proceedings on thegrounds of abuse of process. The basis of the application was that crucial evidence onwhich the prosecution wished to rely had been obtained as a result of seriousprosecutorial misconduct. The Commissioner heard evidence and argument over aperiod of 4 days and on 20 March dismissed the application. The appellants then madean application for a ruling that the evidence obtained by the use of the audio deviceshould be excluded under article 76(1) of the Police Procedures and CriminalEvidence (Jersey) Law 2003 (“the 2003 Law”) which provides:“Subject to paragraph (2), in any proceedings a court may refuse toallow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances,including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, theadmission of the evidence would so adversely affect the fairness of theproceedings that the court ought not to admit it.”3.
 
This application was heard by the Commissioner on 29 April 2008 anddismissed on the same day. The Court of Appeal of Jersey heard a renewedapplication for leave to appeal against both decisions and dismissed both applicationson 14 August 2008 (reasons being given on a later date).4.
 
The appellants now appeal to the Board, but only against the refusal of a stay.A successful appeal would inevitably lead to the quashing of the convictions.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->