British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Jersey Unreported Judgments >>
AG -v- Hanby [2014] JRC 054A (28 February 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2014/2014_054A.html
Cite as:
[2014] JRC 054A,
[2014] JRC 54A
[
New search]
[
Help]
Bail application pending appeal.
[2014]JRC054A
Royal Court
(Samedi)
28 February 2014
Before :
|
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Marett-Crosby and Crill.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
David Hanby
J. C. Gollop, Esq.,
Crown Advocate.
Advocate P. G. Nicholls for the Appellant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1.
The
application for bail pending appeal is refused. The test which the Court has to apply is
whether there are exceptional circumstances, whether it appears on the face of
it the appeal is likely to be successful and particularly where there is a risk
that the sentence will have been served before the appeal is heard. When your counsel opened his application
for bail on your behalf, he said that in his view it was manifestly excessive
and/or wrong in principle, he said there was no violence and that you did not
know the victim.
2.
When we
read the report of the police officer concerned and look at the victim's
statement and the police officer's statement, it seems to us that it must
have been an extraordinarily frightening time for the victim. She came across a man she did not know
in her premises and he did use some physical force towards her because he
grabbed her from behind, according to her statement, around the shoulders and
it was a strong hold and she was petrified and the Court can understand
why. In those circumstances it
seems to us it would be very difficult to say that the sentence was wrong in
principle, we do not make any finding on it. We just think it is difficult to say
that for the purposes of the test we have to apply today, are there exceptional
circumstances which apply, and so we think that even if there were to be a case
on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, it is very unlikely that any
reduction in sentence would take you below the time which you are due to serve
between now and the date the appeal is heard on 20th March.
3.
For all
those reasons bail is refused.
No Authorities