Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/116

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

23^rd June, 2000

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

Jurats Le Ruez and Bullen

The Attorney General

-v-

Charles Henry Hutchinson

Review of Magistrate's Court grant of bail

in a sum beyond the Applicant's means

On 5^th & 12^th June, 2000: the applicant reserved his plea to:

2 counts of:  criminally and fraudulently obtaining goods and services;

5 counts of:  criminally and fraudulently obtaining services and accommodation;

1 count of:   criminally and fraudulently obtaining services;

1 count of:   escaping without force from lawful custody, contrary to Article 22(A) of the

                    Prison (Jersey) Law, 1957.

Bail was granted in the sum of £250 with condition of observing a 7pm - 7am curfew

and of reporting daily to police.

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate M.H.D. Taylor for the applicant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.            On the 5^th June, 2000, this applicant appeared before the Magistrate on a single charge of obtaining services to the value of £761.00, by false pretences.  He was granted bail by the Magistrate in the sum of £250.00 and the case was remanded for one week.  The applicant was unable to raise that sum of money and, on the 12^th June, renewed his application for bail. By that time however further charges had been laid against him and he faced a total of seven charges of obtaining goods and services by false pretences in the sum of over £2,200; he also faced a charge of escaping from lawful custody. The Magistrate, having heard submissions, did not alter his decision and renewed bail in the sum of £250; that is to say the sum which he had fixed a week before.  The money available to the applicant had by that time shrunk from £80 to £60.

2.            Counsel for the applicant has now drawn our attention to the case of Travis -v- AG (28^th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported when this Court stated that if bail is to be granted by the Magistrate it must be set at a realistic amount which is within the reasonable financial reach of the accused.  It is clear that £250 is not within the reach of the accused.  On the other hand, it is equally clear that when the matter came before the Magistrate on the 12^th June, it would have been possible for him in the light of the changed circumstances then obtaining to have withdrawn bail altogether.  Indeed, we think that the risk of further offences being committed is such that the Magistrate could very well have based a decision on that ground.  He did not however and he continued bail in the sum of £250.

3.            It is clear that that decision cannot stand and we are therefore going to allow the appeal and, pursuant to the Police Court (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1949 remit the matter to the Magistrate's Court for the re-consideration of all the circumstances in the light of this judgment.  If the Magistrate decides to renew the grant of bail he must fix the figure at a sum within the financial reach of the applicant.  In the meantime the applicant will remain in custody.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Travis (28^th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported.