Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26 August 1998

Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Ruez and Bullen

IN THE MATTER OF

an application by ROBERT JOHN YOUNG for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal, and for leave to appeal against his CONVICTION on 26 March 1998, by the Inferior Number, following not guilty pleas to the following charges:

4 counts ofinducement to take part in arrangements with respect to the management of property by statements known to be misleading, false or deceptive, contrary to Article 12(c) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)(Jersey) Law, 1967: counts 1A, 2C, 3A, 5A., on each of which counts concurrent sentences of 4½ years imprisonment were passed by the Superior Number on 8 May 1998;

Application, under Article 35(2) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961, for admission to bail pending determination of an application for leave to appeal against conviction.

P Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate

The Applicant on his own behalf

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is an application for bail by Dr Robert John Young who was sentenced to 4½ years imprisonment on 8 May 1998. The defendant appealed against his sentence and that appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 9 July 1998. In its reasoned judgment the Court of Appeal said this: "Dr Young was fortunate to receive sentences of only 4½ years." The defendant has now applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal against his conviction and it appears that the Plenary Court will be able to sit to hear all these matters in January of next year. The Court will first consider the application to extend time and if it is successful will then go on to consider the application for leave to appeal.

The Royal Court under Article 35(2) of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961, "may, if it sees fit, on the application of an appellant, admit the appellant to bail pending the determination of his appeal". That gives the Court a discretion but it is a discretion which of course must be exercised judicially.

In deciding whether or not to grant bail, this Court must ask itself the question - asked in R-v-Watton, (1978) 68 Cr.App.R 293 - in the way that it did in the case of AG v Mallett (1 March 1991) Jersey Unreported, (1991) JLR N.7: "The true question is: are there exceptional circumstances which would drive the Court to the conclusion that justice can only be done by the granting of bail?" Such circumstances will exist if it appears on the face of it that the appeal is likely to be successful or where there is a risk that the sentence will have been served by the time that the appeal is heard. That second point of course will not arise in this case because the Court of Appeal is prepared to sit to hear the defendants application in January of next year. We have carefully considered the very detailed arguments prepared by Dr Young in his 20 page statement but we cannot see any matter raised within the eleven grounds that give us a clear and unequivocal feeling that any one of these points is so substantial that it will result in the conviction being quashed. Crown Advocate Matthews has very carefully taken us through points of the transcript where necessary and we have no unease in our minds that leads us to the conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances here. There are many points that Dr Young has raised which will no doubt take some time to argue before the Court of Appeal. This is not the place to argue them today. They may or may not be successful, if the application for an extension of time succeeds. As to Dr Youngs personal circumstances, it is appreciated that he has a genuine difficulty with his eyesight but he has had a lawyer appointed to him and we cannot see that research in the University of Nottingham library can be any more advantageous to him than using available research material within this jurisdiction. The fact that before he was convicted and sentenced Dr Young was able to adhere to his terms of bail is not relevant, in our view, to this present application. We cannot see, despite the strenuous efforts that Dr Young has made, that there are exceptional circumstances and the application is accordingly dismissed.

In passing, it seems to us essential that someone is appointed by the Bâtonnier without delay to assist Dr Young further.

Authorities

Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961: Articles 24, 25, 30(1), 35(2)

A.G.-v-Mallett (1 March 1991) Jersey Unreported; (1991) JLR N.7

R-v-Watton (1978) 68 Cr. App. R. 293

R-v-Howeson, Hardy (1936) 25 Cr. App. R. 167