Capuano v Att. Gen. [2004] JLR_Note 41 (23 September 2004)
- 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 psychiatric treatment as part of the sentence.
02
Material facts
Parties
Capuano
ApplicantAttorney General
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether psychiatric treatment should be ordered as part of the sentence
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey criminal procedure
Court may order psychiatric treatment as part of sentencing in criminal matters.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the appropriateness of psychiatric treatment as part of the sentence.
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 >> Capuano v Att. Gen. [2004] JLR_Note 41 (23 September 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2004/JLR04N041.html Cite as: [2004] JLR_Note 41 [ New search ] [ Help ] Capuano v Att. Gen. 2004 JLR Note 41 (23 September 2004) Criminal Procedure-sentence-psychiatric treatment 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: 2004 JLR Note 41 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2004/JLR04N041.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.