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 >> AG v Munks [1999] UR 66 (9 April 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/66.html Cite as: [1999] UR 66 |
||
[New search] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
9 April 1999
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and
Jurats Le Ruez and Tibbo
AG
-v-
Oliver Munks
Application for review of refusal of bail in the Magistrate’s Court
On 17 December 1998: the Applicant reserved his plea to 1 count of breaking and entering or aiding, assisting or participating in said offence or receiving, hiding or withholding goods therefrom and was remanded in Youth Detention, without bail option.
On 21 December 1998: the Applicant was released from Youth Detention, on a warning and subject to conditions.
On 28 January 1999: the Applicant pleaded guilty to receiving, hiding, or withholding goods charge and to new count of grave and criminal assault, and was remanded on same terms.
On 11 March 1999: the Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of ecstasy and to a further count of receiving, hiding or withholding goods, and was remanded in Youth Detention.
On 18 March 1999: the Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of Psilocybin and was remanded in Youth Detention.
On 31 March, 1999: the Applicant applied, unsuccessfully, for bail.
Application refused
DE Le Cornu, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate SJ Young for the Applicant
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: The Court has considered carefully the points raised by counsel on behalf of the applicant and in particular the question as to whether the period on remand might exceed the sentence which the Court in due course might impose for the offences to which the applicant has pleaded guilty.
We have to put ourselves in the position of the Magistrate, on 31 March because we are reviewing that decision and in that light we cannot say at this stage that the decision of the Assistant Magistrate to refuse bail on that date was unreasonable and the application is accordingly refused.
No Authorities
