A JURY trial scheduled for 14 December last year had to be postponed for eight weeks as a result of what the Royal Court described as ‘police negligence’, it emerged in a judgment published yesterday.
Roger James Baksa was convicted last week of grave and criminal assault and attempting to pervert the course of justice, but his trial took place two months after it was originally scheduled.
An investigating officer admitted that he had ‘wasted everybody’s time’ by failing to pass the Crown a 600-page report of media messages and telephone logs which he had obtained from the victim.
Deputy Bailiff Robert MacRae, sitting alone to decide whether the Crown should pay defence costs arising from the delay, said he was satisfied that the failure constituted ‘an improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission’.
‘I would classify the act as “negligent”, as the officer was careless in failing to carry out a standard investigative act which was important and had substantial consequences,’ the Deputy Bailiff said.
The mistake only came to light the day before the original trial date which forced the Crown to make an application – supported by the defence – to adjourn. The officer told the court that he could only apologise for ‘wasting everybody’s time’, having mistakenly thought that he had previously referred the report to the Law Officers’ Department.
Acknowledging that the court was slow to accede to late applications to delay proceedings before it, the Deputy Bailiff had ordered the police to send an officer of a rank not below chief inspector to attend a hearing to decide whether a wasted costs order should be made against the Crown.
At that hearing, the police – represented by deputy chief officer Stewart Gull and a detective inspector – accepted that the mix-up was ‘unacceptable’ and called it ‘a genuine mistake’. They confirmed that steps had already been taken to ensure that such evidence was immediately downloaded to the police master file in future. This would result in automatic reminders to classify the material and, where relevant, to transfer it to the computer system of Law Officers’ Department.
In the judgment, the Deputy Bailiff said that in Jersey it was rare that a case listed for trial by jury did not proceed on the date it was due to begin and he described the consequences of the mistake in this case as ‘significant’.
Mr MacRae added: ‘Dozens of members of the public are warned to attend for the purpose of jury service and normally in excess of 20 people attend for that purpose. Witnesses in this case, including the complainant and two doctors, as well as police officers, were required to attend court. The Royal Court was set aside for three days. The defendant [was] in custody awaiting trial … mistakes like this, although a genuine mistake, are unacceptable and inexcusable when they give rise to consequences of this kind.’
However, although Mr MacRae said that he would have exercised his discretion to order the Crown to compensate the defence for the delay, he said he could not make such an order because the defendant was in receipt of legal aid and was making no contribution to the cost of his defence.
‘I have not heard full argument on this issue but I am provisionally of the view that although the court has the jurisdiction to make a wasted-costs order even when the receiving party is in receipt of legal aid, it may frequently be inappropriate to do so if their advocate is unremunerated.
‘However, if and when the new fixed-fee regime is introduced pursuant to the Access of Justice (Jersey) Law 2019, it will be permissible and, on appropriate facts necessary, to make a wasted-costs order in relation to the relevant scale fee to which defence counsel is entitled,’ the Deputy Bailiff said.
