Barette -v- AG 11-Sept-2006 [2006] JCA 128 (11 September 2006)

Barette -v- AG 11-Sept-2006 [2006] JCA 128 (11 September 2006)

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge's summing up failed to adequately direct the jury on the necessity of finding actual loss to Bel Val Farms Ltd, and the evidence relied upon to prove loss was incomplete without the uncontradicted explanation that compensation paid was a commercial gesture rather than proof of actual loss. The presence of the juror did not amount to apparent bias, but the summing up created a risk that the jury was misled on a critical element of the offence.

Citation
[2006] JCA 128
Parties
Appellant: Andrew Charles Barette; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Jury Trial
Outcome
Conviction quashed; appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Jury Bias, Fair Trial, Appeal Procedure, Dishonesty, Proof of Loss
Criminal Law Jury Procedure Fraud Jury Bias Fair Trial Appeal Procedure Dishonesty Proof of Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Charles Barette

Appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presence of a juror with connections to the farming community gave rise to apparent bias and an unfair trial
  2. 2 Whether the summing up by the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the issues of dishonesty and proof of loss in a fraud case
  3. 3 Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for fraud against Bel Val Farms Ltd

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge's summing up failed to adequately direct the jury on the necessity of finding actual loss to Bel Val Farms Ltd, and the evidence relied upon to prove loss was incomplete without the uncontradicted explanation that compensation paid was a commercial gesture rather than proof of actual loss. The presence of the juror did not amount to apparent bias, but the summing up created a risk that the jury was misled on a critical element of the offence.

Court Disposition

Conviction quashed; appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Conviction for fraud quashed.
  • No retrial ordered.