BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/139 - Comer v AG [1999] UR 139 (30 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/139.html Cite as: [1999] UR 139 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
30 July 1999
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff and
Jurats Rumfitt and Le Breton
Between:Stephen Anthony ComerRepresentor
And:Her Majesty’s Attorney GeneralRespondent
Representation alleging breach of natural justice, in that at Representor’s committal hearing, he was denied the opportunity to have heard evidence that would have been to his advantage in demonstrating there was no prima facie case against him.
Application for independent inquiry into circumstances of prosecution and/or for order that prosecution be discontinued.
Representation dismissed.
W J Bailhache, Crown Advocate
The Representor on his own behalf.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: This is a Representation by Stephen Anthony Comer who was committed for trial by the Magistrate on 11 March 1999, on two counts of grave and criminal assault.
Mr Comer is due to stand trial before the Criminal Assizes on those charges on 23 August where he is represented by Advocate Young. In relation to this Representation however, Mr Comer is representing himself. The Representor complains in essence that he should not have been committed for trial by the Magistrate and that he was deprived in the committal proceedings of the opportunity of adducing evidence from a co-accused at that time, Mr Joe David Andrade. The prayer of the Representation records that Mr. Comer is seeking the following relief:
"(a)Her Majesty’s Attorney General and/or such other parties as the Court may see fit be convened to answer to this Representation; and/or
(b)the Prison authorities and/or the Attorney General release a copy and transcript to the Representor, of the tape recording pleaded in respect of at paragraphs 11 to 16 hereof; and/or
(c)there be an independent enquiry into the circumstances whereby the prosecution of the Representor came to be brought, continued and committed, with a view to determining whether HM Attorney General has committed a contempt and/or is in breach of the relevant prosecution standards; and/or
(d)the prosecution of the Representor be discontinued; and/or
(e)the Crown pay to the Representor general damages in such sum as the Court may see fit; and/or
(f)the Crown pay to the Representor his costs of and incidental to his defence on an indemnity basis."
We deal with each of those paragraphs in turn:
(a)the Attorney General has been duly convened and we have heard an application by the Crown Advocate that the Representation be dismissed on the basis that it is an application for Judicial Review which is fundamentally flawed and misconceived. The Attorney General does not accept some of the factual allegations set out in the Representation but it is unnecessary in our judgment to resolve those disputes.
(b)for reasons which it is unnecessary to rehearse Mr Comer accepts that this paragraph falls away because the Crown Advocate has told us that he is releasing Advocate Young from the undertaking given by that advocate not to release a copy of the transcript and tape in question to Mr Comer.
(c) & (d) This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain applications for this relief. The evidence against Mr. Comer will be tested in due course at the trial of the charges upon which he has been committed for trial. It will be open to him if thought fit, to summon Mr Andrade to give evidence at that trial. If there are valid complaints about the conduct of the Attorney General or of the prosecuting authorities in relation to the prosecution process, such complaints can be examined by the trial judge at the appropriate time.
(e)This, too, appears to us to be misconceived. If there is a claim for damages, although the basis for such a claim is unclear this, too, must await the outcome of the trial. The Representation is accordingly dismissed.
Authorities
Greffier of the States v Les Pas Holding, Ltd [1998.132] Jersey Unreported CofA.
