Director of Public Prosecutions v Glen Jacobs (a pseudonym)[1]

The Director of Public Prosecutions applied to review a decision by a trial judge to refuse to certify a decision to edit sections of the recorded evidence of the complainant, AR, relating to an incident that occurred prior to the offence for which the respondent, Jacobs, was being retried. Jacobs had previously been charged with two counts of rape, and was acquitted on the first charge at a trial before a jury. The retrial was for the second charge. Jacobs applied for leave to further cross-examine AR, and the judge allowed this. The Director sought to appeal the decision of the trial judge to allow further cross-examination, and also to review the refusal to certify the decision to edit sections of AR's recorded evidence. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the prosecution case had been eliminated or substantially weakened by the editing of AR's recorded evidence, and whether the judge had erred in permitting Jacobs to further cross-examine AR.

The Court of Appeal held that the editing of AR's recorded evidence did not eliminate or substantially weaken the prosecution case. The Court found that the edited evidence was still sufficient to support the prosecution case, and that the judge had not erred in permitting Jacobs to further cross-examine AR. The Court found that the interests of justice permitted further cross-examination of AR before the judge-alone, and that the decision to allow further cross-examination did not amount to an error of law. The Court held that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to certify the decision to edit sections of AR's recorded evidence, and that the Director's application to review this decision should be refused. The Court also held that the application for leave to appeal against the decision of the trial judge to allow further cross-examination of AR should also be refused.

The Court of Appeal refused the application of the Director to review the refusal of the judge to certify the decision to edit sections of AR's recorded evidence relating to the first episode. The Court also refused the application for leave to appeal against the decision of the judge to give leave to counsel for the respondent to further cross-examine AR.