Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Prior [2000] JRC 227 (17 November 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2000/2000_227.html
Cite as: [2000] JRC 227
|
|
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Prior [2000] JRC 227 (17 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2000/2000_227.html Cite as: [2000] JRC 227 |
||
[New search] [Help]
2000/227
2 pages
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
17th November, 2000
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and
Jurats de Veulle and Bullen
The Attorney General
-v-
Jason Cyril Prior
Application for release on bail, following a not guilty plea entered on 15th October, 1999, to:
1 count of grave and criminal assault.
[On 15th October, 1999, the accused pleaded guilty to 1 count of taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the owner's authority, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended; 1 count of driving without a licence, contrary to Article 3 of the said Law; and 1 count of using a motor vehicle uninsured, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1956].
Application refused.
D.E. Le Cornu, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the applicant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. This is an application for bail by Jason Cyril Prior who has been charged with grave and criminal assault. Counsel has reminded us that the applicant has been in custody since 7th April, 1999, and that it is likely that his trial will not take place - on the assumption that he maintains his plea of not guilty to the charge - until the beginning of next year. It is therefore unusual for an accused person to be held on remand in custody for such a long period.
2. The Court has, however, had the opportunity of studying carefully the papers which have been placed before us and it is satisfied that the circumstances of this case are sufficiently unusual to justify the continuation of the remand in custody. In particular we have had close regard to the reports prepared by the Consultant Psychiatrists and we are satisfied as at present advised that if the applicant were released he would constitute a significant risk to the public and that there would therefore be a risk of further offences being committed.
3. On that basis the Court refuses the application for bail.
Authorities
Archbold (2000 Ed'n): paras: 16-52 & 53; 16-57 to 16-59; 16-73.