2000/53A
3 pages
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
24th March, 2000.
Before: P.J. de Veulle, Esq., Lieutenant Bailiff,
and Jurats Myles and Allo.
The Attorney General
-v-
Tony Nigel Tucker
Application for review of Magistrate's Court refusal of bail.
On 05 Oct 1999: the applicant reserved his plea to 1 count of possession of explosive material (petrol bombs), contrary to Article 4 of the Loi (1884) sur les matières explosives;
On 23 Nov 1999: the applicant reserved his plea to a further count of possession of explosive materials (petrol bombs), contrary to Article 4 of the Loi (1884) sur les matières explosives; to 1 count of selling alcohol without a licence, contrary to Article 79(1) of the Licensing (Jersey) Law, 1974; to 1 count of possession of a shotgun without a licence, contrary to Article 5 of the Loi (1879) sur le Port d'Armes; and to 1 count of possession of a sawn-off shotgun, contrary to Article 3 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law, 1956, and was remanded in custody without bail option.
On 20 Dec 1999
17 Jan 2000, 14
& 18 Feb 2000: Bail was refused and on 18th February, the applicant was remanded for trial before the Royal Court.
[On 23rd December, 1999, Royal Court dismissed application for review of Magistrate's Court refusal of bail on 20th December, 1999.]
On 23 Feb'00: Assistant Magistrate reserved decision on application for bail.
On 25 Feb'00: Bail refused by Assistant Magistrate.
Remitted to Assistant Magistrate for reasons for refusal of bail.
A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J.C. Gollop for the Applicant.
JUDGMENT
THE LIEUTENANT BAILIFF: Tony Nigel Tucker was charged on 5th October, 1999, in connection with possession or control of explosive substances. There were further charges on 23rd November, 1999. On 20th December, Mr. Tucker made his first application for bail to the Magistrate's Court. He had reserved his plea to three charges but pleaded guilty to possession of a shotgun without a licence. Bail was refused by the Magistrate on the basis that following the Makarios judgment the offences were of such a serious nature that bail could not be granted.
Three days later on 23rd December, 1999, the Royal Court declined to interfere with that decision.
On Wednesday, 23rd February, 2000, and on the basis of changed circumstances a second application for bail was made, this time before the Assistant Magistrate. He had rehearsed before him the arguments against bail from Mr. Christmas on behalf of the police and on Mr. Tucker's behalf the arguments for bail put forward by Advocate Gollop.
Assistant Magistrate Trott said on that occasion:
"...I'm going to reserve my judgment until Friday morning, 10.00 a.m. this Court, until then he'll remain in custody. I'm not making any promises, but I will give the matter greatest consideration."
Two days later on Friday of that week Judge Trott said:
"Having given this matter very deep consideration, having considered the matter along with the facts, I have decided that I am going to refuse the application and therefore he will remain in custody."
Advocate Gollop on the basis that no reasons were given by the Assistant Magistrate offers two courses of action, either to require the Assistant Magistrate to provide reasons or to hear the application before this Court de novo. This Court is placed in a very difficult position because we are unable to review the decision on a proper basis and we therefore prefer the approach adopted in AG -v- Halley (8th December, 1995) Jersey Unreported and have decided that we are going to refer the matter back to the Assistant Magistrate with the direction that he provide reasons for his decision on 25th February and that this matter be dealt with, with the greatest possible expedition, preferably on this coming Monday next.
Tucker, you are remanded in custody.
Authorities
A.G. -v- Halley (8th December, 1995) Jersey Unreported.
A.G.-v-Makarios (1978) JJ 215.