Jersey Unreported Judgments

Royal Court

(Samedi Division)

28 May 1999

Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

Jurats Rumfitt and Georgelin

AG

-v-

Kevin Francis Joseph Travis

Application for review of Magistrates Refusal of Bail.

On 17 December 1998 the applicant reserved his plea to: 1 count of offering to supply a controlled drug (cannabis) contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978; 2 counts of being concerned in supplying a controlled drug (cannabis; amphetamine sulphate) contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978; and I count of criminally conspiring to import drugs controlled by the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

The applicant was remanded in custody, without bail option, and again on 13 January and 10 February.

On 3 March 1999 the applicant reserved his plea to a further count of being concerned in supplying a controlled drug (cannabis resin) contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

The applicant was remanded in custody, without bail option, and again on 10 March 1999.

On 7 April 1999, The applicant reserved his plea to a further count of offering to supply a controlled drug (cannabis), contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

The applicant was remanded in custody, without a bail option, and again on 5 May 1999.

On 11 May 1999the applicant was remanded in custody, without a bail option for trial by Royal Court.

On 12 May 1999the applicant applied for bail and was remanded in custody subject to a bail option of £100,000.

Court remits question of bail to Magistrates Court.

The Solicitor General.

Advocate S E Fitz for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: This is an application by Kevin Francis Joseph Travis for a review of the Magistrates decision, whereby bail was granted, subject to further unspecified conditions, in the sum of £100,000.

The applicant faces very serious charges alleging, inter alia, conspiracy to import drugs to a value said to be of the order of £440,000. Notwithstanding the gravity of the accusation made against the applicant, and the fact that a prima facie case has been conceded, in that a paper committal has taken place, the Magistrate has agreed in principle to grant bail. There are conditions yet to be precisely determined, but in principle the Magistrate has decided to grant bail and has fixed the amount at £100,000.

In setting that sum, there is no doubt - and indeed this was conceded by the Solicitor General - that the Magistrate had regard to the means of the applicant’s father-in-law. The father-in-law, and indeed the parents-in-law, have agreed to offer accommodation for the applicant and to supervise him in some way which is not clear to the Court, by ensuring that he does not leave the property. But the father-in-law has not agreed to act as a financial surety.

In our judgement the Magistrate erred in taking account of the means of the father-in-law in setting the amount of bail at £100,000. Having decided in principle to grant bail, the Magistrate must fix an amount which is reasonably within the applicant’s financial reach; that means not merely the applicant’s own financial resources, but resources upon which he is able to draw in order to reinforce his obligation to appear to stand his trial in due course.

We accordingly remit the matter to the Magistrate, with a direction that he reconsider the amount of bail to be set in this case, and the other conditions which are to be met by the applicant in the light of the remarks which we have just made.

No Authorities