Bayliss v Att. Gen. [2004] JLR 409 (12 November 2004)

Bayliss v Att. Gen. [2004] JLR 409 (12 November 2004)

A defective indictment due to an incorrect statement of a known and subsisting offence is not a nullity; if the judge properly explains the defect to the Jurats and no substantial miscarriage of justice occurs, the appeal should be dismissed.

Citation
[2004] JLR 409
Parties
Appellant: Bayliss; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defective Indictment, Statement of Offence, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Defective Indictment Statement of Offence Miscarriage of Justice

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bayliss

Appellant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an incorrect statement of a known and subsisting offence in an indictment renders it a nullity or merely defective
  2. 2 Whether allowing Jurats to consider such an indictment is a wrong decision of law under Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, art. 25(1)
  3. 3 Whether proper judicial explanation can cure the defect and prevent a substantial miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

A defective indictment due to an incorrect statement of a known and subsisting offence is not a nullity; if the judge properly explains the defect to the Jurats and no substantial miscarriage of justice occurs, the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed