Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC145

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd September 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Curtis Warren

John Alan Welsh

James O'Brien

Jason Woodward

Paul Hunt

Oliver Lucas

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. J. Hopwood for the Defendant.

The other Defendants did not appear and were not represented

Bail application for O'Brien.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant, who stands indicted for conspiracy to import cannabis, applies for bail to attend the funeral of his father in Thailand.  It would require his absence from the Island for some 10 days, including travel time.  The application is made on compassionate grounds, supported by a personal letter from the Defendant. 

2.        Mr Hopwood has drawn to our attention the comments of Bailhache, Bailiff, in the case of AG v Munks [2006] JRC 121 where he said:-

"The Court does sometimes grant bail on compassionate grounds, particularly where it is wished to attend a family funeral, or other circumstances exist where it is fair and right that a prisoner should be released for a limited period."

3.        The defendant's mother lives in Thailand.  He has one brother, who lives in Jersey, who is prepared to pay for the tickets and has offered a £1,000 surety.  The defendant has lived in Jersey for 20 years and has worked during that time as a builder's labourer.  He has £120 but no other assets.

4.        The Crown opposes the application on the grounds of the risk of the defendant absconding. 

5.        We have had regard to the defendant's Convention Rights (see Archbold 2008 Edition paragraph 16-52) and the relevant considerations set out in Neumeister v Austria 1 EHRR 91, and those are:-

"the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties, and all kinds of links with the country in which he is being prosecuted." 

6.        The defendant has a bad record.  In particular he was convicted in 2002 for importing a substantial quantity of cannabis by boat, and sentenced to 8 years.  That is the same role of which he is accused in this case, an offence allegedly committed within months of his release.

7.        Mr Hopwood accepts that no safeguards can be put in place for a journey of this kind and to a location of this kind, where we note there is presently some political instability.  In essence we have to assess the circumstances and put our trust in the defendant returning.  It is not clear whether an extradition treaty is in place with Thailand, but once, of course, he is out of the Island we have no control as to where the defendant might chose to go.

8.        We have given the matter very careful consideration.  The Court is prepared to act compassionately in appropriate circumstances, for example to attend a funeral in Jersey, or possibly in the UK, where safeguards can be imposed.  However, with regret, we conclude that in all the circumstances there is a risk that the defendant will not return to face his trial, and that risk outweighs the compassionate grounds put forward.  The application is therefore refused.

Authorities

AG v Munks [2006] JRC 121.

Neumeister v Austria 1 EHRR 91.

Archbold 2008.