R v Jenkin (No 15)

In the case of R v Jenkin, the defendant was prosecuted for various criminal charges, and the trial took place in the relevant court. The central dispute involved the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically whether it constituted an admission by the defendant, and whether there was a reasonable excuse for the failure to record a conversation. The prosecution argued that the evidence should be admitted as it was an admission by the defendant, while the defence countered that the evidence was not an admission and there was no reasonable excuse for the failure to record the conversation.

The court was required to decide whether the evidence in question was an admission by the defendant, and if not, whether there was a reasonable excuse for the failure to record the conversation. The court also needed to consider the factors relevant to granting leave under s 192, including the length of the proceedings, the efficiency of the conduct of the trial, and the importance of the evidence in the context of the case.

The court held that the evidence was not an admission by the defendant, as it related to a different conversation than the one cross-examined on. The court further found that the matter did not arise out of the evidence given in cross-examination, and therefore, the failure to record the conversation was not a reasonable excuse. In assessing the application for leave under s 192, the court took into account the length of the trial, the inefficient conduct of the proceedings, and the relative unimportance of the evidence in the context of the case. The court concluded that granting leave would further extend the length of the proceedings, and therefore, refused the application.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence in question was not admitted as an admission by the defendant, and the application for leave under s 192 was refused. The trial proceeded without the contested evidence, and the court continued to consider the remaining evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.