Jersey Unreported Judgments

1999/17B

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th January, 2000

 

Before:    F.C. Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

                                                      Jurats de Veulle, and Le Breton.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Glen Thomas Cabot

 

Application for review of refusal of bail in the Magistrate's Court on 25^th January, 2000, following a guilty plea to 1 count of grave and criminal assault.

 

On 30^th December, 1999, the applicant reserved his plea and was remanded in custody without bail option.

 

On 25^th January, 2000,  the applicant pleaded guilty and was refused bail.

 

Application refused.

 

 

 

                                                D. E. Le Cornu, Crown Advocate

                                          Advocate R. J. F. Pirie  for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:   We have to remind ourselves that this is a review of the Magistrates decision.  As was said in the case of A.G -v- Skinner (22^nd June, 1994) Jersey Unreported:

 

"Before this Court can interfere with the refusal by the Magistrate to grant bail, we have to be satisfied that either the Magistrate positively misdirected himself, or the proceedings were irregular, or that he gave a decision which no reasonable Magistrate could properly have given."

 

Mr Pirie, who presented the bail application in the Court below, put the facts fairly and squarely there before Judge Trott.   It cannot be said that he omitted to say anything that was relevant to his application.

 

The Judge gave no reasons for his decision other than to say "Until then you will remain in custody".  We have considered that aspect but we cannot on the reading of the transcript interpret anything as showing that Judge Trott had pre-judged the matter, indeed Mr Trott heard Mr Pirie without any interruption, and then called upon DC Milburn, for the police, who strongly opposed bail.   DC Milburn in fact used the words "The police have great reservations".

 

We cannot see any reason to interfere with the decision. If there is some merit in the fact that the complainant and his brothers have been charged with serious offences, apparently arising from this incident, and have been granted bail, which Mr Pirie tells us is a matter which may have caused a feeling of injustice in the mind of the applicant,   then we would only suggest that Mr Pirie, if he shares his client's views should perhaps make a further application to the Court below on the basis of altered facts.  But this Court reviewing, as we do, because that is all we are entitled to do, has to refuse bail.

 

 

Authorities

 

A.G -v- Skinner (22^nd June, 1994) Jersey Unreported