AG v Hutchinson [2000] JRC 116 (23 June 2000)
- Citation
- [2000] JRC 116
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Bail Application Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Bail Decision
More details
- Posture
- Bail Application Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Bail Decision
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Magistrate erred by setting bail at a sum beyond the applicant's means; bail must be attainable if granted, and the matter must be reconsidered in light of all circumstances.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Matter remitted to the Magistrate's Court for reconsideration of bail in light of this judgment
- Applicant to remain in custody pending reconsideration
02
Material facts
Parties
Applicant
Applicant Counsel: Counsel for the applicantAttorney General
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Original Bail Amount: GBP 250
- Value of Services Obtained (initial Charge): GBP 761
- Value of Goods and Services (total Charges): GBP 2,200
- Applicant's Available Money (12 June): GBP 60
03
Procedural history
Posture
Bail Application Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Bail Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether bail set by the Magistrate was within the reasonable financial reach of the accused
- 02
Whether the Magistrate should have reconsidered bail in light of additional charges
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Bail was set at a sum beyond the applicant's financial means, contrary to legal principles requiring bail to be realistic and attainable.
- Respondent
- The risk of further offences and the seriousness of the charges justified the bail amount or its withdrawal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
A.G. v Travis (28 May 1999) Jersey Unreported
Bail must be set at a realistic amount within the reasonable financial reach of the accused.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Magistrate erred by setting bail at a sum beyond the applicant's means; bail must be attainable if granted, and the matter must be reconsidered in light of all circumstances.
Obiter and limits
- The Magistrate could have withdrawn bail altogether given the risk of further offences.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- Matter remitted to the Magistrate's Court for reconsideration of bail in light of this judgment
- Applicant to remain in custody pending reconsideration
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 BAILIFF: 1. On the 5 th June, 2000, this applicant appeared before the Magistrate on a single charge of obtaining services to the value of £761.00, by false pretences. He was granted bail by the Magistrate in the sum of £250.00 and the case was remanded for one week. The applicant was unable to raise that sum of money and, on the 12 th June, renewed his application for bail. By that time however further charges had been laid against him and he faced a total of seven charges of obtaining goods and services by false pretences in the sum of over £2,200; he also faced a charge of escaping from lawful custody. The Magistrate, having heard submissions, did not alter his decision and renewed bail in the sum of £250; that is to say the sum which he had fixed a week before. The money available to the applicant had by that time shrunk from £80 to £60.
2. Counsel for the applicant has now drawn our attention to the case of Travis -v- AG (28 th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported when this Court stated that if bail is to be granted by the Magistrate it must be set at a realistic amount which is within the reasonable financial reach of the accused. It is clear that £250 is not within the reach of the accused. On the other hand, it is equally clear that when the matter came before the Magistrate on the 12 th June, it would have been possible for him in the light of the changed circumstances then obtaining to have withdrawn bail altogether. Indeed, we think that the risk of further offences being committed is such that the Magistrate could very well have based a decision on that ground. He did not however and he continued bail in the sum of £250.
3. It is clear that that decision cannot stand and we are therefore going to allow the appeal and, pursuant to the Police Court (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1949 remit the matter to the Magistrate's Court for the re-consideration of all the circumstances in the light of this judgment. If the Magistrate decides to renew the grant of bail he must fix the figure at a sum within the financial reach of the applicant. In the meantime the applicant will remain in custody. Authorities A. G. -v- Travis (28 th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported. Page Last Updated: 19 Aug 2015 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.