Att. Gen. v Watts [2005] JLR_Note 49 (09 December 2005)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the appropriateness of imposing a suspended sentence.
Court disposition
sentence suspended
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ApplicantWatts
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether a suspended sentence is appropriate
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey criminal procedure
Suspended sentences may be imposed in appropriate circumstances.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the appropriateness of imposing a suspended sentence.
Court disposition
sentence suspended
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 Watts [2005] JLR_Note 49 (09 December 2005) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2005/JLR05N049.html Cite as: [2005] JLR_Note 49 [ New search ] [ Help ] Att. Gen. v Watts 2005 JLR Note 49 (09 December 2005) Criminal Procedure-sentence-suspended sentence 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: 2005 JLR Note 49 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2005/JLR05N049.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.