ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
5 November 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Allo and Le Breton
AG
-v-
Joseph Patrick Naughton
Application for review of refusal of bail in the Magistrate’s Court.
On 1 April 1999 the applicant pleaded not guilty to 2 counts of grave and criminal assault and to 1 count of causing malicious damage and was remanded on a warning to appear, and again on 29 April, 27 May, 10 June, 8, 20, and 26 July, 23 August, and 20 September.
On 14 October 1999 the applicant was convicted on one count of grave and criminal assault on the malicious damage count and was remanded in custody without bail option. He was remanded on the other count of grave and criminal assault.
On 20 & 22 October 1999 Bail was refused, and on 22 October 1999 the appellant lodged a notice of appeal against his conviction.
Application Refused
C E Whelan, Crown Advocate
Advocate D C Sowden for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The facts of the Attorney General -v- Skinner (24 June 1994) Jersey Unreported, limit us on bail applications from the Magistrate’s Court. We have to be convinced that the Magistrate acted without lawful basis, that he acted capriciously, or made a decision that no reasonable Magistrate could have reached in the circumstances.
The delays are, of course, of concern, but they are perhaps not over- important here because the applicant was not in custody at the time.
The Relief Magistrate heard the evidence. He talked of 14 stitches in the mouth of the complainant and the loss of a front tooth. He says - and the problem is, of course, that he heard the evidence and we did not - that there were eight to ten punches by a man who is an experienced boxer.
He was to have been sentenced within three weeks. Problems arose which were not entirely, this time, of the prosecution’s making, and apparently the applicant will now be sentenced on 11 November.
His second trial may come later, but we would prefer to ignore the facts of this second trial at this stage, because the decision that Mr Boxall made seems to us to be entirely consistent with a decision which a proper Magistrate should have made in the circumstances.
We are going to have to refuse bail, but if the sentence did follow a course which was non-custodial, then, of course, Miss Sowden, you would make a fresh application. In any event, we can hear a bail application after sentence, because we will then be looking at different considerations, because, as you know, when a bail application is made pending appeal, we are able to consider such grounds as exceptional circumstances, and it may be - and I’ll say no more than that - it may be, that there are exceptional circumstances in this case, but we cannot examine them in the context of the present application. So therefore bail has to be refused.
Authorities
A.G -v- Skinner (24 June 1994) Jersey Unreported.