Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC026B

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

17^th February 2009

Before     :

Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner, sitting alone.

The Attorney General

-v-

Curtis Warren

John Alan Welsh

James O'Brien

Jason Woodward

Paul Hunt

Oliver Lucas

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Gilbert for Woodward.

The other Defendants represented themselves.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant, Curtis Warren, seeks reasons from me in a ruling as to why I have not required Crown Advocate Gollop to withdraw from the case.  Mr Warren's reasons are twofold, first because he suggests that Advocate Gollop has misled the Court on numerous occasions, but in particular in relation to an application concerning a co-defendant named Liazid. 

2.        Liazid has featured particularly in an application made before me on the 18^th November, 2008, it was claimed that the Crown had been less than frank in their disclosures to the defence concerning whether or not extradition warrants had been made against Liazid and as to his whereabouts.  I remember, though I don't have them immediately before me, that a number of documents were placed before the Court and I gave a ruling about it, it was not the first time that Liazid's name had featured in applications made before me.  I gave my ruling on that occasion, as I recall it, in robust terms and in effect I ruled that this matter had been raised on previous occasions, it had now been ventilated more fully before me, and I found no justification for the complaints which had been raised.  I can not say I ever detected any example of Advocate Gollop having misled the Court and although it is perfectly open for any defendant to make such an accusation I must have proper material before I can act upon it and I do not think there is any material.  I think Advocate Gollop, as far as I can judge it, has behaved properly throughout, and he is entitled to continue.  As I have emphasised, defendants cannot pick and chose who prosecutes them any more then they can pick and chose who judges their case.  Though no criticism has been made, so far as I am aware, about my sitting in that capacity.  I am afraid I do not find any grounds for suggesting that Advocate Gollop should withdraw for that reason.

3.        The second matter, though I would have expected it to have been raised by the defendant Welsh rather than by the defendant Curtis Warren, is that Advocate Gollop represented Mr Welsh on two previous occasions.  Mr Welsh has not suggested any specific reason that influences me in deciding that Mr Gollop should withdraw from his position.  I have asked Advocate Gollop personally whether he feels professionally embarrassed by his position.  It is a position in which experienced and busy Advocates sometimes find themselves, and they have to ask whether, in deciding to accept a prosecution brief, having previously represented that particular defendant, they would feel embarrassed in the way they handle their case.  Would it prejudice the defendant, would the Advocate have knowledge which he had obtained in a professional capacity which he could then produce to the defendant's disadvantage in the subsequent trial?  I have heard nothing that suggests that that situation has arisen and Mr Gollop assures me that on reflection it has not.  I cannot, I am afraid, accede to that sort of application without really solid evidence, and there is not any.  I wish to add that I am surprised that if there was anything in this application it was not made at an earlier stage. 

4.        The application is refused.

No Authorities