R v Ebanks

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Quin, J.)
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2014
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 28 April 2014

Grand Court, Criminal Division

(Quin, J.)

R.

and

E.K. EBANKS

T.M. Ward, Q.C., Deputy D.P.P. for the Crown;

L. Aiolfi for the defendant.

Cases cited:

(1) R. v. Maqsud Ali, [1966] 1 Q.B. 688; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 229; [1965] 2 All E.R. 464; (1965), 49 Cr. App. R. 230, applied.

(2) R. v. Rampling, English C.A., July 28th, 1987, unreported, noted at [1987] Crim. L.R. 823, applied.

Criminal Procedure-juries-supplying transcript of evidence to jury-transcript of recording of telephone conversation given in evidence may be supplied to jury after retirement if accurate record of recording and jury bases ultimate decision on recording itself

The defendant was charged with corruptly obtaining money with intent to interfere with the administration of justice and committing a breach of trust by corruptly obtaining money for himself.

The defendant made two phone calls to the accused which were recorded by the police. These recordings were played to the jury at his trial and the Crown wished to place written transcripts of these conversations before it when it retired to make its decision.

The Crown submitted that, although the transcripts were not themselves evidence, providing them to the jury was an administrative convenience to assist it in reaching its conclusion. Whether or not the admission of the transcripts should be allowed should follow the same guidance as for transcripts of recorded interviews with police. Accordingly, as the transcripts were useful to the jury, were accurate and the jury had heard the recordings, there was no reason not to allow it to be supplied with copies.

The defendant submitted in reply that providing the jury with the transcripts would be prejudicial. Transcripts should only be made available to the jury if there was a good reason for doing so (e.g. the audio quality of the recordings was poor) and should only be retained after it had

retired in exceptional circumstances-particularly as the defendant had not known he was being recorded at the time. The defendant did not, however, allege that the transcripts were inaccurate.

Held, allowing the Crown”s application:

The transcripts were of very considerable value to the jury and would be provided to it. The best evidence of the conversations were the actual recordings themselves, but, provided that they were accurate, transcripts were secondary evidence of the conversations. Further, transcripts could serve as a convenient aid to the jury, although the jury would still be required to base its ultimate decision on what it had heard on the recordings rather than...