Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/243

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th December, 2000

 

Before:    Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff.

                 Sitting alone.

 

 

                 IN THE MATTER OF

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Jason Cyril Prior

 

 

On 15^th October, 1999, the accused pleaded not guilty to:

 

1 count of:    grave and  criminal assault. ( count 1);

 

and guilty to :

 

1 count of: taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the owners consent, contrary to Article 28 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law             1956, as amended ( count 2 ):

1 count of: driving without a licence, contrary to Article 3 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended (count 3);  and

1 count of:  using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)         (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (count 4).

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF

 

A preliminary issue: an application by the accused for the Court to determine (a) the meaning of "insanity" in the Criminal Justice (Insane Persons) (Jersey) Law 1964; and (b) the appropriate rest for legal insanity in Jersey.

 

Application by the accused for leave to tender the opinions of two witnesses,

Professor Conor Gearty and Professor Ronald Mackay.

 

 

D.E. Le Cornu, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate C.M Fogarty for the accused.

 

 

                                                                JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.    This is an application by Counsel for the accused to produce opinions prepared by Professor R.D. Mackay and Professor C.A. Gearty and to tender them for cross-examination.  Both are barristers at law qualified in the law of England.  They are not qualified in the law of this Island.

 

2.    Professor Mackay's opinion addresses what he describes as two fundamental questions, namely whether the M'Naghten Rules are open to challenge under the Human Rights Act, 1998, and, if so, how the defence of insanity could be altered so as to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

3.    Professor Gearty in his opinion deals with the M'Naghten Rules as a matter of principle in the context of the convention.  He also expresses views as to the construction of the Criminal Justice (Insane Persons)(Jersey) Law 1964, and as to the effect upon the construction of that law once the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 is in force.

 

4.    All these views, interesting and stimulating as they are, and however distinguished their authors, are not receivable as evidence of the law of Jersey.   What I have to determine is the meaning of insanity under the 1964 Law.  That is a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation and no question of foreign law arises.   The Convention's jurisprudence is only relevant to this determination to the extent that it forms part of the law which the Courts in Jersey are to apply.    I therefore refuse to hear evidence from either Professor McKay or from Professor Gearty.

 

5.    Now, Miss Fogarty, perhaps I may add by way of amplification to that decision, that although Mr Le Cornu asked me to remove from the bundles the opinions which you have included, I have read them, they are there, and I see no purpose in removing them from the papers before the Court.  However,  you will please bear in mind the ruling which I have given and certainly rely on them to the extent that you wish in making your submissions, but they are not evidence before the Court.

 

 

Authorities

 

Criminal Justice (Evidence & Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1998; A.8 (3) (a) to (d)

 

In re: Imacu, Ltd (1989) JLR at p.17

 

Phipson on Evidence (15^th Ed'n; 2000): p.974.