Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Hanby [2014] JRC 054A (28 February 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

No exceptional circumstances found; unlikely that any reduction in sentence would result in applicant serving less time than until appeal date; bail refused.

Court disposition

bail refused

02

Material facts

Parties

Applicant

Applicant Counsel: Applicant's counsel

Respondent

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Appeal Hearing Date: 20

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Bail Pending Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant's counsel argued the sentence was manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle, there was no violence, and the applicant did not know the victim.
Respondent
Respondent relied on the victim's statement and police report, emphasizing the frightening nature of the incident and physical force used.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's test as stated in judgment

    Bail pending appeal requires exceptional circumstances, likelihood of appeal success, or risk of sentence being served before appeal is heard.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

No exceptional circumstances found; unlikely that any reduction in sentence would result in applicant serving less time than until appeal date; bail refused.

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

[2014] JRC 054A

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. The application for bail pending appeal is refused. The test which the Court has to apply is whether there are exceptional circumstances, whether it appears on the face of it the appeal is likely to be successful and particularly where there is a risk that the sentence will have been served before the appeal is heard. When your counsel opened his application for bail on your behalf, he said that in his view it was manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle, he said there was no violence and that you did not know the victim.

2. When we read the report of the police officer concerned and look at the victim's statement and the police officer's statement, it seems to us that it must have been an extraordinarily frightening time for the victim. She came across a man she did not know in her premises and he did use some physical force towards her because he grabbed her from behind, according to her statement, around the shoulders and it was a strong hold and she was petrified and the Court can understand why. In those circumstances it seems to us it would be very difficult to say that the sentence was wrong in principle, we do not make any finding on it. We just think it is difficult to say that for the purposes of the test we have to apply today, are there exceptional circumstances which apply, and so we think that even if there were to be a case on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, it is very unlikely that any reduction in sentence would take you below the time which you are due to serve between now and the date the appeal is heard on 20 th March.

3. For all those reasons bail is refused. No Authorities 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.

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.