Trant v AG and Ors 29-Nov-2006 [2006] JRC 172 (29 November 2006)

Trant v AG and Ors 29-Nov-2006 [2006] JRC 172 (29 November 2006)

Claims seeking declarations that plaintiffs cannot be compelled to attend or give evidence in Jersey are struck out as trite law and an abuse of process. Claims regarding privilege against self-incrimination are struck out as they must be determined by the trial court, not this court. Claims alleging violation of Article 8 ECHR and common law rights in the taking of witness statements are struck out except insofar as they allege statements were obtained by misrepresentation; that aspect is allowed to proceed. Claims regarding Patrick Trant's statement and evidence are struck out as unarguable. The court declines to strike out the claim relating to alleged misrepresentation in obtaining...

Citation
[2006] JRC 172
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Plaintiff: Patrick Trant; Plaintiff: Timothy Trant; Plaintiff: Simon Trant; Defendant: Peter Michel; Defendant: Simone Gallichan
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out / Judgment on Strike Out Application
Legal Topics
Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Declaratory Relief, Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Abuse of Process, Compellability of Witnesses, Disclosure Obligations, Article 8 ECHR
Criminal Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Privilege Against Self Incrimination Declaratory Relief Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Abuse of Process +3 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Patrick Trant

Plaintiff

Timothy Trant

Plaintiff

Simon Trant

Plaintiff

Peter Michel

Defendant

Simone Gallichan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out / Judgment on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs can be compelled to attend or give evidence in Jersey criminal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether privilege against self-incrimination applies and can be determined by this court
  3. 3 Whether the taking of witness statements violated Article 8 ECHR or common law rights

Ratio Decidendi

Claims seeking declarations that plaintiffs cannot be compelled to attend or give evidence in Jersey are struck out as trite law and an abuse of process. Claims regarding privilege against self-incrimination are struck out as they must be determined by the trial court, not this court. Claims alleging violation of Article 8 ECHR and common law rights in the taking of witness statements are struck out except insofar as they allege statements were obtained by misrepresentation; that aspect is allowed to proceed. Claims regarding Patrick Trant's statement and evidence are struck out as unarguable. The court declines to strike out the claim relating to alleged misrepresentation in obtaining...