AG v Chevalier [2000] JRC 46 (10 March 2000)

AG v Chevalier [2000] JRC 46 (10 March 2000)

Consecutive sentences are appropriate for separate offences, but the sentence is reduced due to delay and the totality principle, resulting in three months' imprisonment to run consecutively to the existing sentence.

Citation
[2000] JRC 46
Parties
Prosecutor: Attorney General; Defendant: Chevalier, Riant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Consecutive Sentences, Totality Principle, Delay in Prosecution
Criminal Law Sentencing Consecutive Sentences Totality Principle Delay in Prosecution

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Chevalier, Riant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consecutive sentences should be imposed for multiple offences including dishonesty and grave and criminal assault
  2. 2 Effect of delay and totality principle on sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

Consecutive sentences are appropriate for separate offences, but the sentence is reduced due to delay and the totality principle, resulting in three months' imprisonment to run consecutively to the existing sentence.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Three months' imprisonment on all charges, concurrent, to be served consecutively to the existing sentence.