Jersey Unreported Judgments

Court of Appeal

2 April 1998

Before: Lord Carlisle QC (President), JG Nutting QC and PD Smith QC

BetweenMayo Associates SA,First Plaintiff

Troy Associates, Limited,Second Plaintiff

TTS International, LimitedThird Plaintiff

AndCantrade Private Bank Switzerland (CI) Limited,First Defendant

Touche Ross, LimitedSecond Defendant

IN THE MATTER OF

an Application for leave to appeal and appeal by the Plaintiffs against:

1.the decision of the Royal Court on 1 December 1997, that the Bailiff would sit at the hearing of the Plaintiffs submission that the Bailiff should recuse himself from the hearing of the substantive matter, namely the Judgment delivered on 18 December 1997;

2.the decision of the Royal Court of 1 December 1997, that the Bailiff would not recuse himself from the hearing of the substantive matter; and

3.the decision of the Royal Court of 18 December 1997, that:

the Viscount shall send, under cover of a letter from him, a letter from the First Defendant setting out their offer to the investors, and further that the Plaintiffs shall supply the Viscount in confidence with the names and addresses of the investors with whom they have been or are in negotiation; the Viscount to send a copy of the Judgment of the Royal Court of 18 December 1997, with the offer letter, but no other documentation.

Representation of the Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, applying for leave to intervene:

"1.That on the 31 March 1998, the "Jersey Evening Post" published a report of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal which contained the following passage -

"And Advocate Sinel further told the court that had it not been for the intervention of the Home Office then it might have been that no one would have been prosecuted for the near-$27m fraud for which currency trader Robert Young and former Touche Ross partner Alf Williams were convicted by the Royal Court last week."

2.That the Greffier of the Court of Appeal has confirmed to the Acting Attorney General that the report is substantially correct.

3.That the prosecution referred to in the paragraph was not the result of any Home Office intervention.

4.That in January 1996, Advocate Sinel complained to the Lieutenant Governor complaining inter alia of the conduct of the Attorney General in respect of the investigation and prosecution of Robert Young and requesting that the Attorney General be given directions in respect of the investigations and prosecution of Young and of Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (CI) Limited.

5.That the complaint was referred to the Home Office and that in April 1996, both Advocate Sinel and the Law Officers were informed that the Home Office had carefully considered Advocate Sinels allegations and found no substance in the complaints which led them to believe that action was called for.

6.That the Acting Attorney General is not aware of any other intervention by the Home Office in relation to the prosecution. In particular the prosecutions referred to in the "Jersey Evening Post" report of the 31 March 1998, were not the result of any Home Office intervention.

7.That it appears to the Acting Attorney General that there is a risk that the Court has been misinformed to a degree which renders it incumbent upon the Acting Attorney General to seek leave to intervene.

Wherefore the Acting Attorney General seeks the leave of the Court to intervene and to place the above facts before the Court."

The Solicitor General

Advocate PC Sinel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants

Advocate AR Binnington for the Defendants/Respondents

Advocate FJ Benest for the Viscount

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: This is an application by the Solicitor General, in her capacity as the acting Attorney General, to intervene in the case. We are grateful to the Solicitor General for the very clear way in which she has put her application.

We accept that the Attorney General has a right to apply to a court to intervene in a case to correct statements which, in his judgment, are misleading to the court. We accept also that he has a general duty to ensure that statements are not made which are unsubstantiated by fact and which could lead to the undermining of confidence in the justice system in general.

The Solicitor General, however, agreed that before she could intervene in any particular case she must satisfy the Court that the matter which she wishes to correct is relevant and significant in the minds of the Court to the issues which they have to decide in the case.

In this case since in the recollection of the Court the comments were made in the context of an application to call fresh evidence which in the event the Court refused as irrelevant, the Court is not satisfied that the remarks made related to any issue which is relevant or significant to the consideration which the Court now has to deal with in this case. In those circumstances the learned Solicitor General’s application is refused.

Authorities

Le Cocq -v- A.G. (1991) JLR 169