AG -v- Coughlan [2011] JRC 184A (23 September 2011)
- Citation
- [2011] JRC 184A
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Bail Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Refusal of Bail
More details
- Posture
- Bail Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Refusal of Bail
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The decision of the Assistant Magistrate to refuse bail was not unlawful or so unreasonable that no reasonable Magistrate could have reached it, and current authority holds that detention in the adult female wing is not unlawful.
Court disposition
application refused
Orders
- Applicant remanded back in custody in accordance with the Assistant Magistrate's decision
02
Material facts
Parties
Miss Coughlan
Applicant Counsel: Miss FogartyCrown
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Bail Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Refusal of Bail
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Magistrate's refusal of bail was unlawful or unreasonable
- 02
Whether detention of a young woman under 18 in the adult female wing of the prison is unlawful
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Magistrate acted unlawfully in refusing bail and in detaining a young woman under 18 in the adult female wing of the prison.
- Respondent
- The Crown does not oppose the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
LG-v-AG [2009] JRC 039
It is not unlawful to detain a young woman under 18 in the adult female wing of the prison.
- 02
General principle of judicial review
A reviewing court must determine if the Magistrate acted unlawfully or so unreasonably that no reasonable Magistrate could have reached that view.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The decision of the Assistant Magistrate to refuse bail was not unlawful or so unreasonable that no reasonable Magistrate could have reached it, and current authority holds that detention in the adult female wing is not unlawful.
Obiter and limits
- There is a pending application before the European Court of Human Rights regarding this issue, but the court will not prejudge its outcome.
Court disposition
application refused
- Applicant remanded back in custody in accordance with the Assistant Magistrate's decision
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: 1. This is an application for review of the decision of the Magistrate to refuse bail to the applicant who was originally granted bail on conditions which included a curfew and which she broke on two occasions. Another of the conditions was that she should not have alcohol at her home and in the course of breaching the conditions (and clearly the intention behind that condition was that she should not be drinking it,) on the information that has been given to us she was apparently drinking alcohol with her aunt.
2. We do not have to decide whether that was or was not a breach of condition in the strict sense but it clearly ran against the intentions of the Magistrate in putting the conditions on which she did. But there was a breach of the curfew on two occasions. The Magistrate had to consider these matters when the matter was referred to her and she chose to reach the view, in the exercise of her discretion, that it was right to refuse any further bail.
3. The test for this Court is whether in doing so, she acted unlawfully or acted so unreasonably that no reasonable Magistrate could have reached that view. Miss Fogarty contends that she acted unlawfully. The current state of the authorities is as set out in LG-v-AG [2009] JRC 039 , a decision of the Royal Court on 4 th March, 2009. We are certain that that decision was to the effect that it was not unlawful to detain a young woman under the age of 18 in the adult female wing at the prison and we are not prepared, on the basis of the submissions which have been put before us today, to declare that that decision of the Royal Court, on that occasion was wrong. We are going to follow it because we are not satisfied that it was wrong. As a result we are told that there is a pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg an application in relation to this very decision and of course, that may or may not be successful. We are not going to prejudge that by assuming that it will be. The current state of the authorities is that it is not unlawful to detain a woman of this age in the adult female wing of the prison.
4. That being so, we have to consider whether or not the decision of the Assistant Magistrate was so unreasonable that no reasonable Magistrate could have reached it. Although the Crown does not oppose, for whatever reason, this application, we do not think that the decision of the Assistant Magistrate can possibly be categorised in that way.
5. Accordingly we refuse to review the decision in the way that has been contended for by Miss Fogarty and Miss Coughlan, you must therefore be remanded back in custody in accordance with the Assistant Magistrate's decision. Authorities LG-v-AG [2009] JRC 039 . Page Last Updated: 07 Feb 2017 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.