Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/156

5 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1^st August, 2000

 

 

Before:    Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats Le Ruez and Tibbo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Andrew Scott Page

 

 

Application for review of refusal of bail in Magistrate's Court on 25^th July, 2000.

 

On 17^th March, 2000, in the Royal Court [See Jersey Unreported Judgment of that date], the applicant pleaded guilty to:

2 counts of:      illegal entry and larceny;

10 count of:     obtaining property by false pretences;

4 counts of:      aiding/assisting/participating in obtaining property by false pretences;

and was placed on 1 year's probation, with condition of attendance at SMART course.

 

On 19^th April, 2000,     in the Magistrate's Court, the applicant pleaded not guilty to 1 count of criminally and fraudulently obtaining accommodation and services by use of a credit card.

 

On 5^th May, 2000,          in the Royal Court, the applicant was granted bail in the sum of £2,000.

 

On 12^th May, 2000,       in the Royal Court, the applicant's bail money was reduced to £300 amd he was released on bail.

 

On 22^nd May, 2000,       in the Magistrate's Court, the applicant pleaded not guilty to 3 counts of receiving, 1 count of forgery, and 1 count of criminally and fraudulently obtaining services and was remanded in custody without bail option.

 

On 1^st June, 2000          in the Magistrate's Court, the Court declined to hear an application for bail.

 

2^nd June, 2000,               in the Royal Court, the Court remitted the application of 1^st June to the Magistrate's Court with a direction it be heard; in the Magistrate's Court, bail application was refused.

 

On 14^th June, 2000,      in the Royal Court, an application to review the refusal of bail in the Magistrate's Court was dismissed..

 

On 23^rd June, 2000,      in the Magistrate's Court, a further 16 counts were preferred against the applicant; a bail application was refused.

 

On 21^st July, 2000,       in the Magistrate's Court, the applicant pleaded not guilty to 1 count of criminally and fraudulently obtaining goods on 13^th May, 2000, and to 1 count of breaking & entering on 17^th May, 2000, and was remanded in custody without bail option.

 

On 25^th July, 2000,       in the Magistrate's Court, a bail application was refused.

 

APPLICATION DISMISSED.

 

 

 

 

Advocate C. Yates for the Attorney General;

Advocate D.C. Sowden for the applicant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            Andrew Scott Page has applied for a review of the decision of the Assistant Magistrate on 25^th July, 2000, to refuse bail pending trial on numerous charges of dishonesty.  On that day the Assistant Magistrate heard lengthy submissions from counsel for Page and from the police legal adviser on behalf of the Constable of St. Helier.  The transcript then records:

 

Judge Trott:  "Thank you.  Point one is that this case has been remanded to 18^th August and that's for a date for an old style committal.  The second point is that the Court as constituted, not knowing any evidence, has to listen to both parties and having listened to both parties and having, I hope, Mr. Christmas, sent strong terms that you must get on with it, and the police as well, I am going to refuse the application.  Thank you."

 

2.            Unfortunately, the Assistant Magistrate gives no reason for arriving at his conclusion other than, perhaps, the fact that the committal hearing had been fixed for 18^th August; that is only some three weeks away.

 

3.            We wish to make it clear that the deprivation of an accused person's liberty is a serious matter which must, in every case, be justified.  Reasons for the refusal of a bail application must always be given.

 

4.            We are clearly in no position to review the reasonableness of the learned Assistant Magistrate's decision because we do not know what led him to his conclusion.  We could have remitted the matter to the Magistrate's Court, but in view of the history which we are about to recite, we agreed to hear and determine the matter de novo pursuant to the powers conferred upon us by Article 17 of the Magistrate's Court Miscellaneous Provisions (Jersey) Law, 1949.

 

5.            The history of the matter in brief is that the applicant was presented before the Magistrate's Court on 19^th April, 2000, on a charge of obtaining credit by fraud; an application for bail was refused, the Magistrate having been advised that police investigations were continuing in relation to other alleged offences.

 

6.            On 5^th May, 2000, this Court reviewed the Magistrate's decision and decided to grant bail on certain conditions, including the furnishing of bail money in the sum of £2,000 a figure which was, however, reduced on 12^th May to £300.  On that day the applicant was released on bail.

 

7.            On 21^st May the applicant was arrested again and charged with further offences and presented before the Magistrate's Court on 22^nd May.  He pleaded guilty to all those charges and a bail application was made and was refused.

 

8.            On 1^st June, a further bail application was made.  The Magistrate declined to hear the application and the applicant accordingly appealed to this Court on 2^nd June.  This Court directed the Magistrate to hear and determine the application and remitted the matter to the Magistrate's Court for decision.  On the afternoon of that day (2^nd June) the application for bail was renewed and was refused by the Magistrate.

 

9.            On 14^th June, there was a further appeal to this Court, the appeal was dismissed and the Magistrate's decision affirmed.

 

10.        On 23^rd June the applicant appeared again before the Magistrate's Court in relation to 16 further charges which had been laid against him to which he pleaded not guilty.  An application for bail was again made and refused.

 

11.        On 21^st July the applicant appeared again before the Magistrate's Court and was charged with two further offences to which he pleaded not guilty.

 

12.        On 25^th July the applicant made the application for bail which has led to this appeal.

 

13.        Although the applicant is a young man of 21, he has a long record of previous convictions for offences of dishonesty.  The record reveals - and counsel concedes - that there are several instances of offences having been committed whilst the applicant was on bail.

 

14.        The offences now alleged against the applicant can be divided into two groups: the first group were allegedly committed between 17^th March, 2000, when he was placed on probation by this Court for other offences, and 19^th April when he was presented before the Magistrate's Court and remanded in custody.  The second group of offences were allegedly committed between 12^th May, when he was released on bail by this Court, and 21^st May, when he was re-arrested and again remanded in custody.

 

15.        We have considered very carefully the submissions made by both counsel in relation to the strength of the case against the accused.  It would clearly not be appropriate for us to comment on those submissions prior to the committal hearing which will take place on 18^th August.  It is sufficient for us to state our conclusion that, in our judgment, there is a real risk, looking at this man's record and at the case in the round, that further offences might be committed if he were released on bail.

 

16.        We also conclude from the evidence of a recorded telephone conversation between the accused and another person, recorded whilst he was in the prison, that there is a real risk of interference with witnesses.

 

17.        Finally, we accept that the applicant did not leave the Island when released on 12^th May, but in view of the long list of charges which he now faces and the lack of any real ties with the Island we have concluded that there is a risk that he might abscond and fail to appear for trial.

 

18.        We wish only to add that we have been told unequivocally that the committal hearing will take place before the Magistrate's Court on 18^th August and we expect that target to be met.

 

19.        For all these reasons we dismiss the application for bail.  The Court is grateful to both counsel for their submissions.

 

Authorities

 

AG -v- Tucker (24^th March, 2000) Jersey Unreported.