AG v Lomas [2001] JRC 107 (16 May 2001)

AG v Lomas [2001] JRC 107 (16 May 2001)

The defendant's own failure to disclose her supervised methadone programme and her misleading statements to investigating officers justified the prosecution's decision to proceed with the charge; thus, she brought the additional charge upon herself and is not entitled to costs.

Citation
[2001] JRC 107
Parties
Applicant's Advocate: Miss Fogarty; Respondent's Advocate: Mr Le Cornu; Prosecution: Attorney General; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in Criminal Proceedings / Post Abandonment of Charge, Post Conviction on Other Count
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
Costs in Criminal Cases, Abandonment of Charges, Prosecution Duties, Defence Costs
Criminal Law Costs Costs in Criminal Cases Abandonment of Charges Prosecution Duties Defence Costs

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Fogarty

Applicant's Advocate

Mr Le Cornu

Respondent's Advocate

Attorney General

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs in Criminal Proceedings / Post Abandonment of Charge, Post Conviction on Other Count

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs after prosecution abandoned a charge of possession with intent to supply heroin

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's own failure to disclose her supervised methadone programme and her misleading statements to investigating officers justified the prosecution's decision to proceed with the charge; thus, she brought the additional charge upon herself and is not entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused