AG v Lloyd 24-Jul_2023 [2023] JRC 128 (24 July 2023)

AG v Lloyd 24-Jul_2023 [2023] JRC 128 (24 July 2023)

The court held that even if an ADHD diagnosis were available, it would not amount to significant mitigation in the circumstances of this offence. Given the overriding objectives and the late stage at which the issue was raised, it was not appropriate to adjourn for further assessment.

Citation
[2023] JRC 128
Parties
Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
24 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
application for adjournment refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Mitigation, Adjournment, Mental Health
Criminal Law Sentencing Mitigation Adjournment Mental Health

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing should be adjourned for ADHD assessment as potential mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that even if an ADHD diagnosis were available, it would not amount to significant mitigation in the circumstances of this offence. Given the overriding objectives and the late stage at which the issue was raised, it was not appropriate to adjourn for further assessment.

Court Disposition

application for adjournment refused

Orders

  • No adjournment granted; sentencing to proceed as scheduled.