Benest v AG [2019] JRC 068 (24 April 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] JRC 068
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Application for Discharge From Notification Requirements and Restraining Order / Final Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Application for Discharge From Notification Requirements and Restraining Order / Final Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant presents a low risk of re-offending and the risk of sexual harm to the public does not justify continuation of notification requirements or restraining order; both are discharged.
Court disposition
application granted
Orders
- Applicant no longer subject to restraining order as of today
- Notification requirements under Article 5 are dis-applied to the applicant as of today
02
Material facts
Parties
Applicant
Applicant Counsel: Advocate PedleyAttorney General
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Discharge From Notification Requirements and Restraining Order / Final Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant should be released from notification requirements under Article 5 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010
- 02
Whether the restraining order under Article 10 should be discharged
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant relies on de-notification reports from Detective Constable Steve Lynch and Miss Janette Urquhart of the Probation Service, both recommending discharge from notification requirements due to consistently low risk of re-offending.
- Respondent
- Advocate Pedley submits that if a person is subject to a restraining order due to serious sexual risk, they should also be subject to notification requirements, as the threshold for notification is lower than for a restraining order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010, Article 3 and Article 10
Threshold for notification requirements is lower than for restraining orders; inconsistency arises if notification requirements are dis-applied but restraining order remains.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant presents a low risk of re-offending and the risk of sexual harm to the public does not justify continuation of notification requirements or restraining order; both are discharged.
Court disposition
application granted
- Applicant no longer subject to restraining order as of today
- Notification requirements under Article 5 are dis-applied to the applicant as of today
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.
Full judgment text is not available for this record.
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.