De Figueiredo v Att. Gen. [2010] JLR 497 (08 October 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] JLR 497
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Extradition / Interlocutory Appeal
More details
- Posture
- Extradition / Interlocutory Appeal
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
A petition of doleance is not a suitable remedy for challenging interlocutory decisions of a trial judge in extradition proceedings, as such decisions may be appealed to the Privy Council if extradition is ordered, and case management decisions are best left to the trial judge.
Court disposition
petition of doleance dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
De Figueiredo
PetitionerAttorney General
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Extradition / Interlocutory Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a petition of doleance is an appropriate remedy against an interlocutory decision of a trial judge in extradition proceedings
- 02
Whether the Superior Number should interfere with case management decisions of a trial judge
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The petitioner sought to challenge an interlocutory decision of the trial judge regarding extradition by way of a petition of doleance.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that a petition of doleance was not the appropriate remedy for challenging interlocutory decisions in extradition proceedings and that such decisions should be appealed to the Privy Council if extradition is ordered.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey case law
A petition of doleance is not the appropriate remedy for challenging interlocutory decisions of a trial judge in extradition proceedings.
- 02
Jersey case law
Superior Number should rarely interfere with trial judge's management of criminal proceedings via petition of doleance.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
A petition of doleance is not a suitable remedy for challenging interlocutory decisions of a trial judge in extradition proceedings, as such decisions may be appealed to the Privy Council if extradition is ordered, and case management decisions are best left to the trial judge.
Obiter and limits
- Case management decisions depend on the trial judge's detailed knowledge of the case and are rarely suitable for review by the Superior Number on a petition of doleance.
Court disposition
petition of doleance dismissed
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 >> De Figueiredo v Att. Gen. [2010] JLR 497 (08 October 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2010/JLR100497.html Cite as: [2010] JLR 497 [ New search ] [ Help ] De Figueiredo v Att. Gen. 2010 JLR 497 (08 October 2010) Extradition-extradition from Jersey-petition of doleance-interlocutory decision of trial judge on petitioner's appeal against extradition order not suitable matter for petition of doleance-very rarely appropriate for Superior Number to interfere on petition of doleance with decision of trial judge in management of criminal proceedings-not remedy of last resort as, if extradition ordered, interlocutory decision may be challenged on appeal to Privy Council-also inappropriate as case management decisions depend on trial judge's detailed knowledge of case 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: 2010 JLR 497 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2010/JLR100497.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.