R v Jacobs (No 8)

In the matter of R v Jacobs (No 8), the case involved the accused, Jacobs, who was subject to a covert listening device that captured admissions made by him. The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained from the covert listening device was unreliable due to the accused's delirium, and whether a warning under section 165 of the Evidence Act should be given to the jury. The court also had to consider whether there were good reasons not to give such a warning and whether the court had special experience with admissions made by an accused who was delirious.

The court considered that there was no special experience with regard to delirium that would enable it to assess the reliability of the evidence captured on the covert listening device. While delirium could impact the reliability of an accused's admissions, the court found that it was not in a position to determine the extent of this impact. Furthermore, the court found that there were no good reasons not to give a warning to the jury. The court held that it was important to ensure that the jury was aware of any potential unreliability in the evidence, and that this could be achieved through the appropriate warning.

Accordingly, the application for a warning pursuant to section 165 of the Evidence Act was refused. The court found that the evidence obtained from the covert listening device could be admitted, but that a warning should be given to the jury to alert them to the potential unreliability of the evidence due to the accused's delirium. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that juries are properly informed of any potential unreliability in evidence, and the need for careful consideration of the factors that may impact the reliability of such evidence.