The long-running case of drugs baron Curtis Warren took another twist in Jersey's Royal Court yesterday with his lawyers renewing attempts to over-turn his conviction.
Warren is currently in Full Sutton prison, serving a 13-year sentence after being arrested in 2009 for his involvement in a plan to import £1 million worth of cannabis into the island.
Yesterday an application was made for the Appeals Court judge to grant leave for a judicial review. It was made after the Lieutenant Governor had refused to send Warren's case back to the Court of Appeal, after a previous attempt to appeal his conviction was lost.
Warren's advocate, Stephen Baker, based his application on an allegation that lies had been told in Court, and therefore the Privy Council's opinion the Court wasn't misled was wrong.
He also argued that because an enquiry into the misconduct of the police force was only opened on the day of the Privy Council's judgment, it came too late to influence their decision.
He stated: "The prosecution got away with it by the skin of the teeth. It is no coincidence that the disciplinary hearing was announced on the day of the Privy Council's judgment, four years after the police's misconduct. It gives an indication of how close the Advocate General came to lose the case. Had the hearing been done before the case went to the Privy Council's, the Defence would have explored it differently.
"The police position is that the law officers supported them in putting in front of Commissioner Tucker a false case. This is a completely extraordinary situation where bodies who are meant to enforce and uphold the law are accusing each other of telling lies. It is extremely serious and material that a police force would allow Court to proceed on a false basis, especially all the way to the Privy council."
But Advocate David Benest, who represented the Lieutenant Governor, said that "...the disciplinary hearing was not helpful to the case," and that Advocate Baker's application was, "...one of ifs and buts which relies on a recasting of evidence, not on fresh evidence. The difference of contents between the disciplinary hearings and the Royal Court proceedings is easily explained by the different purposes of the hearings. We are making assumptions that because something is said in a slightly different way, it is a lie."
Appeals Court judge Michael Beloff will now consider his judgement.
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.