Police apologise after evidence blunder emerges on eve of trial

Thursday 17 February 2022

The trial of a man accused of abusing a woman had to be called off at the eleventh hour because a Police officer had failed to provide more than 600 pages of phone evidence, it has emerged.

A judgment published yesterday has revealed how two of the Force’s most senior officers had to apologise to the Royal Court in December 2021 for the “inexcusable ” error that stopped the case from being heard by a jury for another two months.

So "significant" was the mistake that Deputy Bailiff Robert MacRae also considered whether to take the rare – and potentially unprecedented – step of making a “wasted costs order” to compensate the defendant, Roger James Baksa.

However, it was decided that this was not necessary as Baksa’s defence costs were fully covered by legal aid.

Baksa, who was eventually convicted of attacking a woman and perverting the course of justice by attempting to convince her not to give evidence to police last week, had been due to face a jury trial on 14 December 2021.

Pictured: The trial had been due to take place in December, but had to be put off due to police "negligence".

The day before the trial, it came to light that an officer in the case had made a mistake in not providing important material to the Crown Advocate who would be leading the prosecution – namely, messages and details of calls between Baksa and his accuser.

In a statement made in September 2021, the victim explained that she had been communicating with Baksa via text, telephone and Messenger – messages the Royal Court observed were clearly “significant in the context of her retraction” – and said she would be willing to provide her phone as evidence.

Days later, an officer, who was not named in the judgment, downloaded content from the phone which resulted in a 600-page report. The intention had been to secure relevant messages and call logs between March and September. 

That material was then supposed to be forwarded to the Law Officers’ Department and Crown Advocate using a confidential document system, but the officer failed to carry out the task.

When this emerged, the Crown asked the Royal Court to adjourn the trial.

The Court explained in its judgment: “[The officer] accepted he was at fault… He accepted that the contents of this material may have been relevant for the purposes of disclosure to the defence but that this material could not be reviewed during the period between its disclosure to the Crown Advocate on the day before the trial and the day of the trial.  

“He said he could only apologise for ‘wasting everybody’s time’. He said that he thought he had referred the material to the [Law Officers’ Department], but he had not. He said he only became aware of his error the day before the trial."

Pictured: 600 pages-worth of material was downloaded from the complainant's phone by an officer - but that information was not passed on.

The Crown argued that the 600 pages of information would not be able to be reviewed properly in the hours before the trial, which the Court accepted and vacated the date. The Deputy Bailiff ordered, however, that the Crown review and disclose the relevant material by 17:00 on what would have been the second day of the trial. 

Around 200 pages of relevant material were identified as a result. The Deputy Bailiff then warned the Crown that the Court was considering making a wasted costs order, and scheduled a hearing for two days later, requesting that “an officer of not less a rank than Chief Inspector attend”. 

Detective Inspector Paul Ryan and Deputy Chief Officer Stewart Gull attended, with the latter apologising to Court for the “failing” and “knock-on consequence” of the trial being pushed back until February 2022.

They accepted that the shortcoming was “unacceptable” and the Deputy Chief Officer said that he had requested a report on what happened. The error was classified as a “genuine mistake”, with which the Court agreed.

Detective Inspector Ryan added that steps had been taken to ensure that the error would not be repeated.

Considering whether a wasted costs order should be imposed, the Deputy Bailiff observed: “…This was an error which gave rise to consequences which were significant. 

“In Jersey it is rare that a case listed for jury trial does not to proceed on the date that it is listed to begin. The vast of majority of trials proceed and it is important that they do so. 

“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 is in custody awaiting trial. As a consequence of the error, the case needed to be vacated, the trial put back for two months, a fresh jury summoned and two doctors, who have other duties to perform, were again warned to attend.”

He added: “Mistakes like this, although a genuine mistake, are unacceptable and inexcusable when they give rise to consequences of this kind.”

Concluding, the Deputy Bailiff said the officer was “careless in failing to carry out a standard investigative act which was important and had substantial consequences” and therefore decided that, had this resulted in costs for the defendant, he would have ordered that a compensatory sum be paid.

Pictured: Deputy Bailiff Robert MacRae handed down the judgment.

“However, I cannot and do not make such an order as the Defendant is in receipt of legal aid with no contribution,” he stated.

While the Deputy Bailiff noted that the Court may have the ability to make such an order even if a defendant is receiving legal aid, he said he was “provisionally of the view that… 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,” he noted.

Baksa, who was described as a "manipulative bully" by police after his conviction last week, is due to be sentenced at a later date.