ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
9 July 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Quérée and Tibbo.
AG
V
Kevin Michael Howell
Application for review of refusal of Bail in Magistrate’s Court.
On 28 June 1999: the applicant pleaded not guilty to 1 count of grave and criminal assault on a police officer.
On 1 and 2 July 1999:Bail application refused.
A J Olsen, Crown Advocate
Advocate A P Begg for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Before this Court can interfere with the decision of the Magistrate, we have to be satisfied that either the Magistrate positively misdirected himself, or the proceedings were irregular, or that he gave a decision which no reasonable Magistrate could properly have given.
It is clear that Advocate Begg, in his spirited argument before us this afternoon, relies and agrees that he can only rely on the last of those maxims: that he gave a decision which no reasonable Magistrate could properly have given.
Advocate Begg covered all the possible aspects of the case in his argument before the Magistrate. We merely remark that his argument covers five pages of typed transcript. He told the Assistant Magistrate that complaints had been made against the officers concerned. He told the Assistant Magistrate of his client’s personal situation and he spoke of the medical consequences of the assault.
The Centenier gave the fullest details of the offence, in fact he did so at unusual length, and we extract from what he said just this passage:
"Whilst the arrest was being carried out another male came out from a nearby house and whilst running towards the officers he began shouting ‘What are you f…ing doing?’ By that time PC Le Bail of the States Police had formed the opinion that this second male was coming to the assistance of the arrested male, therefore he moved around towards him. The States Police Officer instructed him to stay away from the scene, however, the male continued towards the officer and came into contact with him and at this time PC Le Bail was trying to hold him away with his hands. The officer used his hands in an attempt to force the male back away from the scene, however, the male, Kevin Howell, started fighting and grabbed the officer’s arms and pushed him out of the way. Once again the officer attempted to arrest this male for assaulting him and attempted to force him against the wall, however, the male used further violence towards the officer and began punching him in the face repeatedly, to the extent that the officer was unable to control him. During this time the officer and the male ended up on the ground in the doorway and the male put his right arm round the neck of the officer in a headlock. The arm was applied tightly around the officer’s neck and his eyes started to swell. The officer was in fear that he was about to pass out, at the same time as he heard the emergency klaxons arriving at the scene this bringing further officers. On the arrival of the vehicle the male released his grip around PC Le Bail’s neck and Kevin Howell was then arrested and conveyed to Rouge Bouillon Police Station."
Although, as I have said, Advocate Begg - by referring us to the medical reports - has attempted to minimise the actual injuries, Crown Advocate Olsen has told us today that on the latest enquiry he has made, PC Le Bail is still off work.
We also have to say that, again unusually, Centenier Davies made a further short speech in opposition to bail before the Magistrate retired. At the time the Magistrate retired he had - according to Advocate Begg who represented the applicant in the Court below - a large bundle of documents and no doubt he studied all those before he came back to give his decision. His decision was this:
"Having listened most patiently to this application I have made this following decision. The assault on a Police Officer or Honorary Officer, as the case may be, is always viewed very seriously by this Court. I’m refusing the application and therefore trial is fixed for 10 am in this Court on the 28 July."
However we may look at the commencement of this incident and whatever feelings we may have about it, we have to say that in accordance with the maxims under which we have to function in this Court when reviewing applications for bail, there is nothing in this application and therefore bail is refused.
No Authorities