Jersey Judgment

1999/196 - McCarthy v AG [1999] UR 196 (3 November 1999)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

No exceptional circumstances were found to justify granting bail pending appeal; the appellant's arguments were not sufficient under the law.

Court disposition

bail application refused

Orders

  • Bail pending appeal is refused.
  • The Crown is requested to bring the appeal on for an early hearing.

02

Material facts

Parties

Appellant

Appellant Counsel: Advocate Tremoceiro

Attorney General

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Length: months 9

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Bail Application Pending Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant has not used drugs since arrest, suggesting reform, and is unlikely to abscond. These factors should be considered exceptional circumstances justifying bail.
Respondent
No exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail; the facts were known to the sentencing court and do not warrant release pending appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 35(2) of The Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961

    Bail pending appeal may be granted if there is likelihood of success, risk of sentence being served before appeal, or exceptional circumstances.

  2. 02

    A. G.-v-Buesnel (21 August 1996) Jersey Unreported

    Exceptional circumstances are required for bail pending appeal; mere unlikelihood of absconding is insufficient.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

No exceptional circumstances were found to justify granting bail pending appeal; the appellant's arguments were not sufficient under the law.

Obiter and limits

  • The points made by Advocate Tremoceiro may be compelling before the Appeal Court.
  • The Crown is requested to expedite the appeal hearing.

Court disposition

bail application refused

  • Bail pending appeal is refused.
  • The Crown is requested to bring the appeal on for an early hearing.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[1999] UR 196

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Under Article 35(2) of The Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, the Royal Court, may, if it sees fit, on the application of an Appellant, admit the Appellant to bail pending the determination of his appeal. On 1 November 1999 [1999.194] this Appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment by the Inferior Number. The Court clearly considered in some detail the leading case of Buesnel (21 August 1996) Jersey Unreported, where, let it be said at once, the facts were very different. We go no further than that, else we might trespass into the appeal itself, which is not our purpose this afternoon. Advocate Tremoceiro has written his grounds very helpfully, and then amplified them before us. When we look at bail pending appeal, we must look at three factors, the likelihood of success of the appeal, the risk that the sentence will have been served by the time the appeal is heard, and the exceptional circumstances. We have considered all those aspects very carefully, but can see no exceptional circumstances in the present case. In passing, we cannot say that the fact that he is unlikely to abscond is an exceptional circumstance sufficient to grant bail. That fact, and most of the facts expounded before us this afternoon, were well known to the sentencing Court. Mr Tremoceiro argues on behalf of the Appellant that he has apparently not used drugs since the

time he was arrested, and that fact might have meant that reform was not uppermost in the sentencing Court’s mind. We have looked at that aspect very carefully, but we cannot see that in the light of the judgment, and on reflection there was proof to assist the Court to reach that conclusion, as there was in Buesnel. The points made by Advocate Tremoceiro are cogent, and may well be compelling before the Appeal Court, but on reflection - and we have thought very deeply about this - we can see no reason to grant bail in this case. We can only ask that the Crown does everything in its power to bring this appeal on for an early hearing. Authorities A. G.-v-Young (26 August 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.181] A. G.-v-Buesnel (21 August 1996) Jersey Unreported. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

A. G.-v-Young (26 August 1998) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

A. G.-v-Buesnel (21 August 1996) Jersey Unreported

Case cited

Article 35(2) of The Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.