Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Sousa [2017] JRC 053 (29 March 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Based on expert evidence and the legal test from AG-v-O'Driscoll, the defendant is declared fit to plead and may stand trial.

Court disposition

Defendant declared fit to plead

Orders

  • Defendant may stand trial on the counts in the Indictment

02

Material facts

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecution

Sousa

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Fitness to Plead Hearing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Is the defendant fit to plead to charges of sodomy and indecent assault?

Party arguments

Applicant
Both Crown and defence agree, based on expert reports, that the defendant is now fit to plead.
Respondent
Both Crown and defence agree, based on expert reports, that the defendant is now fit to plead.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG-v-O'Driscoll [2003] JLR 390

    Test for fitness to plead

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Based on expert evidence and the legal test from AG-v-O'Driscoll, the defendant is declared fit to plead and may stand trial.

Court disposition

Defendant declared fit to plead

  • Defendant may stand trial on the counts in the Indictment

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 053

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. This is a hearing before the Inferior Number to determine whether or not the defendant is fit to plead to answer to two counts on the Indictment, those of sodomy and indecent assault. In its judgment in this matter of 10 th March 2016 ( AG-v-Sousa [2016] JRC 059 ) the Inferior Number declared that he was not fit to plead and as a result he was detained at Her Majesty's pleasure in a secure hospital in the United Kingdom.

2. We have before us the reports of two experts, the same experts upon who the Court based its judgment on the 10 th March, 2016, and they reflect the fact that the accused has had improvements in his mental health the effect of which is that both experts are now of the opinion that he is fit to plead, applying the test that must be applied in these circumstances specifically that set out in the case of AG-v-O'Driscoll [2003] JLR 390 . We have had the opportunity of reading in advance and considering the reports of those experts and it is right that we reflect that both the Crown and the defence are ad idem in their conclusions that this defendant is fit to plead - we so find and declare that he is fit to plead and may stand trial on the counts on the Indictment. Authorities AG-v-Sousa [2016] JRC 059 . AG-v-O'Driscoll [2003] JLR 390 . 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.

AG-v-Sousa [2016] JRC 059

Case cited

AG-v-O'Driscoll [2003] JLR 390

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.