Jersey Judgment

AG -v- McCabe 5-May-2006 [2006] JRC 069 (05 May 2006)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

A sentence of 9 months' imprisonment is appropriate to reflect the seriousness of absconding and to deter evasion of justice.

Court disposition

Defendant sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment; costs in discontinued proceedings awarded to defence except for costs incurred due to absconding.

Orders

  • 9 months' imprisonment for contempt of court
  • Costs in discontinued proceedings awarded to defence, excluding costs incurred due to absconding

02

Material facts

Parties

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • Imprisonment Term: 9

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Contempt of Court / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant absconded for five years, resulting in the victim moving abroad and the loss of the interview record. The court must send a clear message that absconding has consequences.
Respondent
The victim has put the matter behind him and does not wish to return; the loss of the interview record is not directly the defendant's fault.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

    There is no maximum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment in Jersey for the offence of contempt; sentences exceeding 12 months may be appropriate in cases of evasion of justice.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

A sentence of 9 months' imprisonment is appropriate to reflect the seriousness of absconding and to deter evasion of justice.

Obiter and limits

  • Costs incurred as a result of the defendant's absconding are not recoverable.

Court disposition

Defendant sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment; costs in discontinued proceedings awarded to defence except for costs incurred due to absconding.

  • 9 months' imprisonment for contempt of court
  • Costs in discontinued proceedings awarded to defence, excluding costs incurred due to absconding

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

[2006] JRC 069

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. In the case of Harrison -v- AG [2004] JLR 111 the Court of Appeal said: "There is no maximum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment in Jersey for the offence of contempt. It is therefore open to the Royal Court to impose a sentence which exceeds 12 months in an appropriate case. One can envisage a situation where the offender does in fact evade justice by absconding (e.g. where the key witness dies or becomes unavailable because of a lengthy delay) so that a sentence in excess of 12 months may be appropriate".

2. Here the defendant absconded some five years ago. As a result the victim, who now lives in Singapore, has said that he has put the matter behind him and does not wish to come back. Furthermore, the record of the interview has been lost. That, of course, is not directly the defendant's fault but no doubt it would not have been lost if the matter had proceeded with due expedition.

3. In all the circumstances we think 6 months is insufficient. We think the Court needs to make it clear that if people abscond and try to evade justice then there will be a price to pay. The sentence of the Court is 9 months' imprisonment.

4. I will order costs in connection with the discontinued proceedings in favour of the defence, but I am going to direct that any costs which were incurred as a result of his absconding are not to be recoverable. Authorities Harrison -v- AG [2004] JLR 111 . Page Last Updated: 15 Jul 2016 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.

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111

Case cited

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.