1999/196 - McCarthy v AG [1999] UR 196 (3 November 1999)
- Citation
- [1999] UR 196
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Bail Application Pending Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
More details
- Posture
- Bail Application Pending Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 TremoceiroAttorney General
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Length: months 9
03
Procedural history
Posture
Bail Application Pending Appeal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant should be granted bail pending appeal under Article 35(2) of The Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961
- 02
What constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying bail pending appeal
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Court record
Judgment
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
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.