Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC249

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

23^rd December 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Francis Godel

Robert Paul Hartley

Daniel McIntyre

Application for review of Magistrate's decision to refuse Bail.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. J. Haines for Godel.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Hartley.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for McIntyre.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The Court has sat to review an application, on behalf of Paul Hartley, Ryan Godel and Daniel McIntyre, to have reviewed the decision of the Assistant Magistrate on 21^st December not to grant bail pending the committal of the three accused to the Royal Court, which is due to be heard in the Magistrate's Court in January 2010.

2.        The charges on which the accused face committal are very serious charges and, as has been said by all counsel, it is likely that a custodial sentence will at the very least be considered when the matter comes up before this Court.  On the other hand, at this stage, the facts and the mitigation are not available and so, while it is likely that the three accused face a custodial sentence, that is not inevitable, and the Court takes that into account today. 

3.        The approach which the Court should take on applications such as this has been set out before in this Court in the case of AG-v-Skinner 1994/127 which again all counsel have agreed is the appropriate test for us to apply.  In that case the then Bailiff said:-

"Before this Court can interfere with a refusal by the Magistrate to grant bail, we have to be satisfied that either the Magistrate positively misdirected himself, or the proceedings were irregular, or that he gave a decision which no reasonable Magistrate could properly have given".

4.        This Court is quite satisfied that there was no irregularity in the Assistant Magistrate's approach and that there was no unreasonableness.  However, the Court has reached the view that the Assistant Magistrate misdirected herself in concluding, as she did, that there were substantial grounds for thinking that there would be re-offending between now and the time of sentence.  What Judge Shaw said was :-

"I believe there are substantial grounds to believe that if granted bail you would commit offences." 

5.        Taking into account the nature and seriousness of these offences, the strength of the evidence and the likely sentence, having reviewed what was available before the Assistant Magistrate at that time, we do not think that there was any evidence of substantial grounds to believe that further offences would be committed.  For that reason we think the Assistant Magistrate did misdirect herself and that it would therefore be right to reinstate the bail that previously had been granted by the Relief Magistrate in November.

6.        That bail will be reinstated on the same conditions as he then applied, with one exception, Mr Haines, that in the case of Mr Godel, between the hours of 8pm on Christmas Day and 6.30am on Boxing Day, he will be residing not at his parent's house but at the house of his uncle and his partner in St Brelade.  Details of that address are to be supplied to the Greffier. 

7.        Mr McIntyre, Mr Hartley, Mr Godel, I would like to say to all of you that the fact that you have been granted bail again today should not tell you anything other that you still face trial before this Court in due course for very serious offences.  You must keep to those bail conditions which have been applied.  If you do not do so then the way in which the Court approaches the matter when you come for sentence will be very different and in addition you will lose your liberty pending the hearing in the Court, because a breach of bail conditions will almost inevitably mean that you are taken into custody until you are sentenced for these offences.  I hope you understand that. 

8.        Mr Godel, there are particular difficulties facing you which the Court is concerned about given that you have lost your employment for the time being.  It means that until you come up for sentence in this Court, you, at least, will have more time on your hands and you will not be in the gainful employment which at least kept you busy previously.  You should be aware of that problem and you should take every possible step that you can to get other employment, which may or may not be difficult.  But whether you do or you do not, you must make sure that you comply with these conditions and I am sure that you will be able to rely upon your extended family while your parents are away.  I cannot over-emphasise to all of you how serious this is and it really is important to the three of you that you adhere absolutely to these bail conditions until your trial before this Court.

Authorities

AG-v-Skinner 1994/127.