Jersey Unreported Judgments

Criminal hearing -application to adjourn sentence refused.

[2016]JRC012

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 January 2016

The Attorney General

-v-

Charles David Barnett

J. C. Gollop, Esq, Crown Advocate.

Advocate N. D. E. Addis for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Advocate Addis has applied to adjourn sentence today because Mr Barnett wishes to appeal against his conviction.  We do not agree to that application.  The invariable practice is that following conviction the Court moves to sentence and then the Court of Appeal subsequently hears any appeals against conviction and if necessary against sentence.  That procedure is, as we say, entirely normal and we are not aware of this Court having adopted a different procedure and adjourning sentence until after an appeal against conviction is heard.  There would be practical consequences because it would mean that if the appeal were unsuccessful then the matter would have to come back to the Royal Court for sentence and who knows, possibly go up again to the Court of Appeal for an appeal against sentence.  The practice of this Court is consistent with that in the case of R-v-Drew to which we have been referred where the English Court of Appeal made it clear that it was highly unsatisfactory to defer sentence and the Court of Appeal wished to have all matters before it at the same time.  It deprecated the position of having an appeal against conviction when sentence had not been passed.

2.        We understand the consequences for Mr Barnett's business but that is unfortunately a consequence or may be a consequence of his offending. 

3.        So we do not agree to adjourn sentence.

Authorities

R-v-Drew