Mesquita v AG [2018] JRC 080 (30 April 2018)

Mesquita v AG [2018] JRC 080 (30 April 2018)

Article 6 was not intended to provide compensation for time spent in custody on a separate charge; the Assistant Magistrate had jurisdiction but properly refused to exercise it for the purposes advanced by the appellant.

Citation
[2018] JRC 080
Parties
Applicant: Appellant; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
30 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Community Service Orders, Revocation of Orders, Compensation for Remand in Custody
Criminal Law Community Service Orders Revocation of Orders Compensation for Remand in Custody

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001 allows revocation of a community service order as compensation for time spent in custody on a separate charge
  2. 2 Whether the Assistant Magistrate had jurisdiction to revoke the community service order

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6 was not intended to provide compensation for time spent in custody on a separate charge; the Assistant Magistrate had jurisdiction but properly refused to exercise it for the purposes advanced by the appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed