Chapman -v- AG [2013] JRC 257 (20 December 2013)

Chapman -v- AG [2013] JRC 257 (20 December 2013)

The appellant's conduct, though in part unattractive and unreasonable, did not reach the threshold of gravity required to justify criminal sanction for harassment. The course of conduct was insufficiently oppressive or unacceptable to sustain criminal liability under Article 3 of the Harassment Law.

Citation
[2013] JRC 257
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (Mr Chapman); Complainant: Miss Campbell; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court to Royal Court, Then to Court of Appeal
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Harassment, Appeals, Evidence Assessment, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Harassment Appeals Evidence Assessment Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (Mr Chapman)

Appellant

Miss Campbell

Complainant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court to Royal Court, Then to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct constituted harassment under Article 3 of the Harassment Law
  2. 2 Whether the course of conduct was of sufficient gravity to sustain criminal liability
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate correctly applied the legal test for harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's conduct, though in part unattractive and unreasonable, did not reach the threshold of gravity required to justify criminal sanction for harassment. The course of conduct was insufficiently oppressive or unacceptable to sustain criminal liability under Article 3 of the Harassment Law.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • conviction set aside
  • restraining order set aside