ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
15 October 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff,
Jurats Le Ruez, Le Brocq
AG
v
Robin Le Cras
Application for review of Magistrate’s Court refusal of bail
17 March 1999 the applicant reserved his pleas to two counts of fraudulent conversion and was remanded in custody without bail option, and again on
14 April, 12 May, 9 June, 7 July, 4 August, 1 and 29 September.
29 September 1999 the applicant reserved his pleas to one count of criminally and fraudulently obtaining money from the Employment and Social Security Committee and to four counts of fraudulent conversation and was remanded in custody without bail option.
Application refused
P Matthews, Esq Crown Advocate
Advocate D M C Sowden for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This Court is bound by the decision of AG v Skinner (24 June 1994) Jersey Unreported, but it is a principle which applies in any Court where bail is being applied for in these circumstances. What the Court said in that case is this:
"Before this Court can interfere with a refusal by the Magistrate to grant bail, 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."
We have read the transcript very carefully and what happened was that all these very tragic, personal circumstances, were outlined to the Magistrate; the Magistrate then retired and said that despite everything that he had heard from Counsel he was unable to grant bail. But he said that the Royal Court might grant bail. Well, the problem that we face is that the Royal Court cannot grant bail at this stage because we are not really seized of the matter.
Miss Sowden, who has acted quite properly in the circumstances, has passed up to us today two new letters, that is a letter from the Prison Chaplain and a letter from Mrs Le Cras who is living in England. Those merely make the tragic circumstances more tragic but they really do not advance the problem that we face.
We are going to refuse bail, Miss Sowden. Because Crown Advocate Matthews has told us that he thought it would be four weeks before this matter could come to indictment, we are going to urge upon the Crown to bring this indictment on earlier rather than later and certainly, we would hope, within the next two weeks. That will shorten the time until this Court is seized of the matter and the Crown Advocate is then able to tell us more about the offences. I know they are pleas of not guilty - but we need to know more about the alleged offences, and more about what the recommendations might or might not be and what the chances of success are. It is at that point, I think, that we will be able to give our minds fully to this representation.
You have brought some important matters to our attention. We cannot interfere with the Magistrate’s decision, however, we hope to be able to reach perhaps a more measured conclusion when this matter comes up on indictment which, as we say, should be within the next two weeks. In the meanwhile, bail is refused.
Authorities
AG v Skinner (24 June 1994) Jersey Unreported.