Jersey Judgment

AG v Dixey and Pereira [2017] JRC 066 (28 April 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Bail granted because the Court was not entirely satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed, but the defendants or their counsel may not have been aware of the usual policy, and there was no likely interference with witnesses or flight risk.

Court disposition

Bail granted

Orders

  • Bail granted to defendants after guilty plea despite likely custodial sentence, due to lack of flight risk or witness interference and possible unawareness of policy.

02

Material facts

Parties

Unknown Defendants

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Post Guilty Plea, Bail Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether bail should be granted after a guilty plea to an offence likely to result in a custodial sentence

Party arguments

Applicant
Defendants seek bail after entering a guilty plea, possibly unaware of the Court's usual policy.
Respondent
No explicit respondent argument recorded.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's statement in judgment

    Court's general policy is to remand in custody after a guilty plea to an offence likely to result in a custodial sentence, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Bail granted because the Court was not entirely satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed, but the defendants or their counsel may not have been aware of the usual policy, and there was no likely interference with witnesses or flight risk.

Obiter and limits

  • The landscape changes with a guilty plea and defendants should expect to be remanded in custody if a custodial sentence is likely, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Court disposition

Bail granted

  • Bail granted to defendants after guilty plea despite likely custodial sentence, due to lack of flight risk or witness interference and possible unawareness of policy.

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

[2017] JRC 066

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. The Court's general policy, once a guilty plea has been entered on an Indictment containing charges which are likely to result in a custodial sentence, is to have a remand in custody. But we are conscious that in the more recent past that policy may not have been so routinely applied. However, it will be the policy for the future and one would expect exceptional circumstances to be provided if the Court is going to grant bail after a guilty plea to an offence which is likely to carry a custodial sentence.

2. In this particular case we are not entirely satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances but perhaps the defendants or their counsel had not been aware of the usual policy which is to be applied by this Court and really that is the only reason that the Court is prepared to look at the underlying facts. In this case, we are satisfied that there is not likely to be interference of witnesses or flight risk and for those reasons in this particular case we are going to grant bail. That does not mean that the Court will be imposing a non-custodial sentence.

3. But in doing so we just want to be absolutely clear with the profession that the landscape changes with a guilty plea and that defendants should expect to be remanded in custody once the guilty plea has been entered if it is likely that a custodial sentence will be imposed, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 22 May 2017 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.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.