AG v Michel 16-Sep-2019 [2019] JRC 179A (16 September 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] JRC 179A
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Final Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Final Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found the defendant's level of culpability justified a treatment order rather than imprisonment, and imposed a restriction order to ensure ongoing judicial oversight and public protection.
Court disposition
treatment order and restriction order granted
Orders
- Treatment order under Article 65 for detention in Brockfield House
- Restriction order under Article 68 prohibiting discharge, transfer, or leave of absence except by court order
- Defendant to be examined by responsible medical officer at intervals of not less than six months, with reports to Attorney General
- Destruction of the knife ordered
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ProsecutorDefendant
Defendant Counsel: counsel03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Final Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant is fit to plead
- 02
Whether a treatment order under Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 should be made
- 03
Whether a restriction order under Article 68 should be imposed
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submitted that the defendant's culpability justified a treatment order rather than imprisonment or other penalty, and sought both a treatment and restriction order under the relevant statutory provisions.
- Respondent
- The defendant, through counsel, confirmed her plea of guilty and did not contest the application for a treatment order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016, Article 65
A treatment order may be made under Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 where the defendant's culpability and mental health justify detention in an approved establishment rather than imprisonment.
- 02
Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016, Article 68
A restriction order under Article 68 prevents discharge, transfer, or leave of absence without court order, to protect the public and ensure ongoing judicial oversight.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found the defendant's level of culpability justified a treatment order rather than imprisonment, and imposed a restriction order to ensure ongoing judicial oversight and public protection.
Obiter and limits
- This is the first occasion the court has been asked to make a final treatment order under Article 65 combined with a restriction order under Article 68.
Court disposition
treatment order and restriction order granted
- Treatment order under Article 65 for detention in Brockfield House
- Restriction order under Article 68 prohibiting discharge, transfer, or leave of absence except by court order
- Defendant to be examined by responsible medical officer at intervals of not less than six months, with reports to Attorney General
- Destruction of the knife ordered
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 Commissioner: 1. Firstly, we confirm the finding of the court on the 23 rd May, 2019 that the defendant is fit to plead and the defendant has today through counsel confirmed her plea of guilty.
2. This is the first occasion in which the court has been asked to make a final treatment order under Article 65 of the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 combined with a restriction order under Article 68 and we are therefore going to issue a written judgment which will be handed down in due course. We are therefore going to limited ourselves today, simply to announcing our decision.
3. Suffice it to say, that the court is satisfied that the level of culpability on the part of the defendant is such as to justify the making of a treatment order as opposed to the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment or other penalty.
4. We therefore grant the conclusions of the Crown and; (i) make a treatment order under Article 65 for the defendant to be detained in Brockfield House, an approved establishment, where she has already been admitted and; (ii) make a restriction order under Article 68 so that the defendant cannot be discharged, transferred or granted leave of absence from Brockfield House unless by Order of the Court and; (iii) further order that the defendant be examined by the responsible medical officer at intervals of not less than six months and that the written report of such examinations be sent to the Attorney General containing the responsible medical officer's opinion as to whether the restriction order should continue in effect, and opinion as to where any further treatment of the defendant is to be carried out.
5. The precise terms of those orders are delegated by the court to the Commissioner to determine with counsel following the draft that has been handed up today.
6. We would like to thank Professor Eastman, Dr Bisht and Dr Engelbrecht for their very valuable assistance in dealing with this case.
7. Destruction of the knife ordered. Authorities Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 AG v Michel [2019] JRC 031. AG v Michel [2019] JRC 160 Mental Health Act 1983 R v Birch [1990] 90 Cr App R (S) 78 R v Vowles [2015] 2 CrAppR (S) 6 Crown Court Compendium Part II Sentencing Council, Sentencing Offenders with Mental Health Conditions or Disorders - for consultation only Page Last Updated: 16 Oct 2019 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.