AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 060F (03 April 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] JRC 060F
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Ruling on Applications for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decisions
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Ruling on Applications for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decisions
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Leave to appeal is granted where the issue is clearly arguable and not merely technical; technical points may be refused at this stage and require leave from a higher court.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted in part, refused in part.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted regarding antecedent records of Liazid, Vatandas, and O'Brien.
- Leave to appeal granted regarding prison visits.
- Leave to appeal refused regarding redacted letters of request; leave must be sought from the Court of Appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
Applicant Counsel: J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate assisted by Advocate D. S. SteensonCurtis Warren
Respondent Counsel: Self-representedJohn Alan Welsh
Respondent Counsel: Advocate S. E. FitzJames O'Brien
Respondent Counsel: Advocate E. Le GuillouJason Woodward
Respondent Counsel: Advocate D. GilbertPaul Hunt
Respondent Counsel: Advocate M. J. HainesOliver Lucas
Respondent Counsel: Advocate M. L. PrestonAdvocate R. Tremoceiro
Amicus03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Applications for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decisions
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether leave to appeal should be granted regarding rulings on antecedent records, prison visits, and redacted letters of request
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No objection to applications for leave to appeal on antecedent records and prison visits; opposes leave on redacted letters of request as a highly technical point.
- Respondent
- Applications for leave to appeal on decisions regarding antecedent records (Liazid, Vatandas, O'Brien), prison visits, and redacted letters of request.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's oral ruling
Leave to appeal may be granted where the point is clearly arguable; technical points may require leave from the Court of Appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Leave to appeal is granted where the issue is clearly arguable and not merely technical; technical points may be refused at this stage and require leave from a higher court.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted in part, refused in part.
- Leave to appeal granted regarding antecedent records of Liazid, Vatandas, and O'Brien.
- Leave to appeal granted regarding prison visits.
- Leave to appeal refused regarding redacted letters of request; leave must be sought from the Court of Appeal.
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
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Unreported Judgments You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 060F (03 April 2009) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2009/2009_060F.html Cite as: [2009] JRC 060F, [2009] JRC 60F [ New search ] [ Help ] [2009]JRC060F
ROYAL COURT (Samedi Division) rd April 2009 Before : Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner, sitting alone. The Attorney General -v- Curtis Warren John Alan Welsh James O'Brien Jason Woodward Paul Hunt Oliver Lucas Ruling on leave to appeal. J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate assisted by Advocate D. S. Steenson. Advocate S. E. Fitz for Welsh. Advocate E. Le Guillou for O'Brien. Advocate D. Gilbert for Woodward. Advocate M. J. Haines for Hunt. Advocate M. L. Preston for Lucas. Curtis Warren acting on his own behalf. Advocate R. Tremoceiro as an amicus to the Court.
RULING THE commisioner: 1. I invite anyone to consider whether they would wish to apply to me for leave to appeal those rulings. (Instructions are taken. Advocate Fitz seeks leave to appeal decision re antecedent records of Liazid and Vatandas. No objection from the Crown).
2. Clearly arguable, you may have leave. (Advocate Le Guillou applies for leave to appeal decision re antecedent records of O'Brien. No objection from the Crown).
3. Clearly arguable, you may have leave. (Advocate Preston seeks leave to appeal decision re prison visits. No objection from the Crown).
4. You may have leave. (Advocate Fitz applies for leave to appeal decision re redacted letters of request).
5. I regard this as a highly technical point, as I have said, and I refuse leave. If you want to obtain leave the Court of Appeal must give it. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 26 Jun 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2009/2009_060F.html
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.