Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Barnett [2008] JRC 092 (05 June 2008)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Bail on compassionate grounds is not appropriate due to risk factors and lack of sufficient ties to the jurisdiction.

Court disposition

bail refused

02

Material facts

Parties

Defendant

Defendant

Crown

Respondent Counsel: Miss Nicolle

Mr Gollop

Respondent Counsel: Mr Gollop

Amounts and remedies

  • Heroin Quantity: 120
  • Heroin Value: GBP 120,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Bail Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether bail should be granted on compassionate grounds to a defendant convicted of drug importation

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant seeks bail for 24 hours to celebrate his 20th wedding anniversary with his wife and son.
Respondent
The Crown opposes bail due to risk of absconding, lack of connection to the Island, and threats against the defendant necessitating his placement in the VP Unit.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Neumeister -v- Austria (1968) 1 EHRR 91

    Danger of flight must be evaluated considering character, morals, home, occupation, assets, family ties, and links with the prosecuting country.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Bail on compassionate grounds is not appropriate due to risk factors and lack of sufficient ties to the jurisdiction.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court may grant bail on compassionate grounds but should do so sparingly.
  • It is a sad situation, but consequences arise from the defendant's actions.

Court disposition

bail refused

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

[2008] JRC 092

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to this serious offence of being involved in the importation of 120 grams of heroin, estimated value of £120,000. He was arrested on the 3 rd November, and stands to be sentenced on 14th July and will almost certainly face a custodial sentence.

2. He applies for bail, for 24 hours, in order to celebrate his 20 th wedding anniversary with his wife and son who are coming to the Island for that purpose.

3. Bail is opposed by the Crown on three grounds; the risk of absconding, the lack of connection between the defendant and the Island, and the fact that he is under threat from an unnamed person and thus in the VP Unit in the prison.

4. Miss Nicolle has referred us to the decision of Neumeister -v- Austria (1968) 1 EHRR 91 in relation to absconding in paragraph 10 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "The danger of flight cannot, however, be evaluated solely on the basis of such considerations. Other factors, especially those relating to 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 may either confirm the existence of a danger of flight or make it appear so small that it cannot justify detention pending trial." 5. We have considered all those matters but this is not an appropriate case for the grant of bail on compassionate grounds. The Court will grant bail on compassionate grounds, but we agree with Mr Gollop, that it should do so sparingly.

6. It is, of course, a sad situation. We appreciate that, but this is a consequence unfortunately of the acts undertaken by the defendant.

7. Bail is therefore refused. Authorities Neumeister -v- Austria (1968) 1 EHRR 91 . Page Last Updated: 06 Jun 2015 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.

Neumeister -v- Austria (1968) 1 EHRR 91

Case cited

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.