AG v Hatte [2004] JRC 143 (18 August 2004)

AG v Hatte [2004] JRC 143 (18 August 2004)

The Social Enquiry Report is not evidence but a tool for sentencing and risk assessment. Probation officers are not required to apply Code C conditions or have a lawyer present. The report's references to prior conduct and reliance on Dr Finkelhor's work do not render it inadmissible or require revision. The application to exclude or revise the report is refused.

Citation
[2004] JRC 143
Parties
Defendant: Hatte; Prosecutor: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Sentencing Application
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Probation Report Admissibility, Sentencing Procedure
Criminal Law Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Probation Report Admissibility Sentencing Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hatte

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Sentencing Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Social Enquiry Report should be excluded or revised due to alleged procedural unfairness and reliance on non-expert opinion
  2. 2 Whether statements made to the probation officer can be considered in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The Social Enquiry Report is not evidence but a tool for sentencing and risk assessment. Probation officers are not required to apply Code C conditions or have a lawyer present. The report's references to prior conduct and reliance on Dr Finkelhor's work do not render it inadmissible or require revision. The application to exclude or revise the report is refused.

Court Disposition

application refused