Jersey Judgment

AG v Dhar [2020] JRC 069 (24 April 2020)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Bail was refused because the applicant had no ties to the island, there were substantial grounds for believing he would fail to surrender, commit further offences, and interfere with witnesses.

Court disposition

bail refused

Orders

  • Application for bail refused.
  • Case adjourned to 14th May at 9:30 for plea and directions hearing.
  • Applicant remanded in custody.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Dhar

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Bail Application / Interlocutory

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the applicant should be granted bail under the Criminal Procedure (Bail) (Jersey) Law 2017

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant argued for bail, highlighting good character, lack of previous convictions, and challenging the strength of the prosecution's case.
Respondent
Respondent opposed bail, citing seriousness of the offence, lack of community ties, risk of failing to surrender, risk of committing further offences, and risk of interfering with witnesses.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Procedure (Bail) (Jersey) Law 2017, Schedule 1

    Bail may be denied if there are substantial grounds for believing the defendant would fail to surrender, commit an offence on bail, or interfere with witnesses.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Bail was refused because the applicant had no ties to the island, there were substantial grounds for believing he would fail to surrender, commit further offences, and interfere with witnesses.

Obiter and limits

  • If there is a change in circumstances or the trial date is postponed, the court would reconsider bail.
  • Applicant is entitled to apply for bail at any subsequent hearing.

Court disposition

bail refused

  • Application for bail refused.
  • Case adjourned to 14th May at 9:30 for plea and directions hearing.
  • Applicant remanded in custody.

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

[2020] JRC 069

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Mr Dhar, we have considered your application for bail, and the Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Bail) (Jersey) Law 2017 (the "Bail Law"); which provides: "A defendant's right to be granted bail may be denied if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if granted bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would - (a) fail to surrender to custody; (b) commit an offence whilst on bail; (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to the defendant or any other person." 2. The relevant considerations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Law provide that "In determining for the purposes of paragraph 1 whether the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that a defendant, if granted bail (whether subject to conditions or not), would do anything specified under that paragraph, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant -" And the relevant considerations in so far as this application are concerned are "(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence" And of course in this case we are dealing with a very serious case, an allegation of rape. (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant;" There, we bear in mind your good

character, your lack of previous convictions, but also the fact that you have no ties to the island, you were only here for a week or so prior to the alleged offence being committed. "(d) ... the strength of the evidence of the defendant having committed the offence" We have had regard to that and plainly we make no findings but this certainly cannot be categorised as a weak case, as has been suggested by your counsel. There is certainly a significant case for you to answer. But you have pleaded not guilty and people are acquitted of similar charges on indictment by the jury.

3. We apply those considerations to the questions of risk and the members of the Court are satisfied that in view of your absence of ties to the island there are substantial grounds for believing that you would fail to surrender.

4. In view of the fact, on the Crown's case, you did commit a further offence shortly before your remand on custody, the Court is of the view there are substantial grounds for believing that you would commit an offence whilst on bail. And in relation to the hotel offered as a bail address bearing in mind, as we understand it, it was the hall porter who received the first complaint of the complainant there must be a risk of interfering with the witnesses.

5. So, the Court has no option today but to refuse your application for bail. Certainly if there were to be any change in circumstance or your trial date were to be put back then we would reconsider any question of bail, and of course you are entitled to apply for bail in any event at any subsequent hearing.

6. That being the case we adjourn your case to the 14 th May at 9:30 for a plea and directions hearing and in the meantime you are remanded in custody. Authorities Criminal Procedure (Bail) (Jersey) Law 2017 Page Last Updated: 30 Apr 2020 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.

Criminal Procedure (Bail) (Jersey) Law 2017

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.