AG v Yeaman [2001] JRC 82 (06 April 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 82
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
For public order offences committed under the influence of alcohol, a fine is generally more appropriate than a binding over order, and the amount should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's means.
Court disposition
convicted and fined
Orders
- Yeaman is fined £50 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.
02
Material facts
Parties
Yeaman
DefendantCrown
ProsecutionAmounts and remedies
- Fine Amount: GBP 50
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriateness of binding over order versus fine for public order offences committed under influence of alcohol
- 02
Adequacy of fine amount for such offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No explicit argument from the defendant is recorded; the defendant admitted the offence immediately.
- Respondent
- The Crown moved for a fine, but the court considered the amount too low.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's general principle as stated in judgment
Binding over orders are not usually appropriate for public order offences committed under the influence of alcohol; a financial penalty is generally more suitable.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
For public order offences committed under the influence of alcohol, a fine is generally more appropriate than a binding over order, and the amount should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's means.
Obiter and limits
- A binding over order is too lenient for public order offences committed after drinking.
- Fines for such offences should generally be higher than £50, subject to the defendant's means.
Court disposition
convicted and fined
- Yeaman is fined £50 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.
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 DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. This was a not uncommon incident in the streets of St. Helier where people fuelled with alcohol get involved in an argument which then turns into jostling with punches being thrown.
2. The defendant's friend received a binding over order from the Magistrate's Court. Clearly we do not know the full circumstances of the mitigation available but we wish to comment as a matter of general principle that, where people can afford to go drinking in public houses, get into disputes of this nature and commit public order offences, a binding over order is, in our judgment, not usually an appropriate way of dealing with the matter. It should be dealt with by way of a fine if it is of that level of seriousness where neither probation, a custodial sentence, nor community service is required. It is the Court's opinion that any person who commits a public order offence through drinking should usually be made to suffer by paying a financial penalty; a binding over order is too lenient.
3. Furthermore, we would add that, in general terms, the fine moved for by the Crown is, in our judgment, too low. Again, having regard to a defendant's means, we think that a fine of a greater level than £50 is called for in respect of these sort of offences. However, we bear in mind in this particular case that the defendant's friend did receive only a binding over order; that this case has been hanging over the accused for some time; and that he admitted the offence immediately. We do not feel able simply to impose a binding over order for the reason we have already mentioned, but we will adopt the conclusions of the Crown. Therefore, Yeaman, you are fined the sum of £50 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment and we must emphasise once again that had it not been for the fact that your friend was dealt with too leniently in the Magistrate's Court, the fine would have been higher. No Authorities. Page Last Updated: 02 Nov 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.