ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
28 August 1998
Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Le Ruez and Tibbo
AG
-v-
Steven Cobban Shewan
Simon Thomas McLean
Application for bail, pending trial
On 21 August 1998, the accused pleaded not guilty to the following charges, and were remanded in custody to take their trial at the Assise Criminelle to be held on 14 December 1998:
STEVEN COBBAN SHEWAN
1 count of affray (count 1)
1 count of malicious damage (count 2) and
2 counts of grave and criminal assault (counts 3 & 4)
SIMON THOMAS McLEAN
1 count of affray (count 1) and
1 count of malicious damage (count 2)
Applications for bail dismissed
AJN Dessain, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate DE Le Cornu for SC Shewan
Advocate KO Dixon for ST McLean
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is a bail application which arises from a very serious incident at the ‘Eagle Tavern’ in January of this year. There have been three applications for bail before the Relief Magistrate, these were refused on 9 January 3 February and 7 April and a review of the Relief Magistrates decision by this Court on 17 April led to a refusal to review. This application is de novo and we must say that we do not have the facts that were clearly available to the Court below in as much detail.
Bail is strenuously opposed by the Crown because it is said that witnesses are fearful and those who were assaulted are still trying to overcome their fear and distress, but there has been a very long delay since these two were committed and Shewans girlfriend faces a complicated Caesarean in a few days time. They will have served the equivalent of eighteen months by the time this case comes to trial. If Shewan has the most cogent arguments before us then we felt that McLean could not be treated differently.
In the case of AG -v- Makarios (1978) JJ 215 the Court made it very clear that independent of the question of whether or not he will surrender to his bail the Court is entitled to have regard to the question of the gravity of the offence and an affray in a public house in St. Helier where weapons are used in itself cannot be, in our view, much more serious. The alleged grave and criminal assaults by Shewan are, again, serious and we have, of course, to consider in that light the strength of the prosecution’s case. We find it surprising to have been told that McLean has attended five identity parades and was identified only once. We were not told of the strength of identity by witnesses of Shewan.
This case has caused us much concern but the force of the prosecution opposition to bail has prevailed and the application is dismissed. However, we would say this: we would allow Shewan, in the particular circumstances, as much freedom of movement under escort as the Prison Governor, in his discretion, deems fit. We have to say, Mr Le Cornu, that if complications were to arise we would not inhibit you - in fact we might encourage you - to make a fresh application on grounds of mercy alone.
Authorities
AG -v- Makarios (1978) JJ 215