Att. Gen. v Lefilleul [2006] JLR_Note 33 (20 October 2006)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The respondent breached minimum size limits as prescribed by fisheries regulations.
Court disposition
guilty
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ApplicantLefilleul
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
breach of minimum size limits in fisheries
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey fisheries regulations
Minimum size limits for fisheries must be adhered to.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The respondent breached minimum size limits as prescribed by fisheries regulations.
Court disposition
guilty
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
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Att. Gen. v Lefilleul [2006] JLR_Note 33 (20 October 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2006/JLR06N033.html Cite as: [2006] JLR_Note 33 [ New search ] [ Help ] Att. Gen. v Lefilleul 2006 JLR Note 33 (20 October 2006) Fisheries-offences-breach of minimum size limits The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2006 JLR Note 33 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2006/JLR06N033.html
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.