Att. Gen. v Roberts [2011] JLR 125 (04 March 2011)
- Citation
- [2011] JLR 125
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Application of Notification Requirements
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Application of Notification Requirements
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Notification requirements are applied unless the court is satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that the risk of further sexual offending can be discounted; seriousness of original offence, lapse of time, and absence of special circumstances are relevant.
Court disposition
notification requirements applied unless risk discounted
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ApplicantRoberts
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Application of Notification Requirements
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether notification requirements under Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, art. 13(2) can be applied retrospectively
- 02
Criteria for discounting risk of further sexual offending
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Notification requirements should apply unless there is good reason not to, based on risk assessment.
- Respondent
- Risk of further offending can be discounted if court is satisfied on balance of probabilities; seriousness, lapse of time, and absence of special circumstances are relevant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, art. 13(2)
Notification requirements under Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, art. 13(2) apply retrospectively unless good reason not to.
- 02
Judicial reasoning
Risk of further offending can be discounted if court is satisfied on balance of probabilities.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Notification requirements are applied unless the court is satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that the risk of further sexual offending can be discounted; seriousness of original offence, lapse of time, and absence of special circumstances are relevant.
Obiter and limits
- Risk not discounted if offender denies guilt and refuses to accept harm caused by offence.
- Court should be provided with all background reports at time of offending and updates.
Court disposition
notification requirements applied unless risk discounted
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 Roberts [2011] JLR 125 (04 March 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2011/JLR110125.html Cite as: [2011] JLR 125 [ New search ] [ Help ] Att. Gen. v Roberts 2011 JLR 125 (04 March 2011) Criminal Procedure-Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010-notification requirements-retrospective application-requirements applied under Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, art. 13(2) unless good reason not to-not applied if unjustified because court satisfied on balance of probabilities can discount risk of offender committing further sexual offending-seriousness of original offence, lapse of time since offences and absence of special circumstances originally leading to offences may be relevant-court to be provided with all background reports at time of offending and updates-risk not discounted if offender denies guilt and refuses to accept harm caused by offence 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: 2011 JLR 125 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2011/JLR110125.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.