1998/122 - Wild v AG [1998] UR 122 (15 June 1998)

1998/122 - Wild v AG [1998] UR 122 (15 June 1998)

The conviction for speeding is quashed as conceded by the Crown, and the binding over order should not be reinstated because ambiguities in penal law must be resolved in favour of the accused and the appellant was of good behaviour during the relevant period.

Citation
[1998] UR 122
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; binding over order not reinstated
Legal Topics
Speeding, Binding Over Order, Failure to Notify Change of Address, Appeal, Conviction Quashed
Criminal Law Speeding Binding Over Order Failure to Notify Change of Address Appeal Conviction Quashed

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction and sentence for speeding should be quashed
  2. 2 Whether the binding over order should be reinstated after the conviction is quashed

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for speeding is quashed as conceded by the Crown, and the binding over order should not be reinstated because ambiguities in penal law must be resolved in favour of the accused and the appellant was of good behaviour during the relevant period.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed; binding over order not reinstated

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction quashed