Att. Gen. v Young [1998] JLR 111 (04 March 1998)

Att. Gen. v Young [1998] JLR 111 (04 March 1998)

The presiding judge is to retire with the Jurats to consider the verdict, even though Jurats are the sole judges of fact under the relevant statute.

Citation
[1998] JLR 111
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Young
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial
Outcome
clarification of procedure
Legal Topics
Conduct of Trial, Retirement to Consider Verdict, Role of Presiding Judge, Jurats as Judges of Fact
Criminal Procedure Conduct of Trial Retirement to Consider Verdict Role of Presiding Judge Jurats as Judges of Fact

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Young

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding judge should retire with Jurats to consider the verdict in a trial before the Inferior Number, given that Jurats are sole judges of fact under Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948, art. 13(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The presiding judge is to retire with the Jurats to consider the verdict, even though Jurats are the sole judges of fact under the relevant statute.

Court Disposition

clarification of procedure

Orders

  • Presiding judge to retire with Jurats in trial before Inferior Number