AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 166 (19 August 2009)

AG v Warren and Others [2009] JRC 166 (19 August 2009)

Paragraph (4) of Article 1 of the 2009 Law requires that defendants charged with customary law offences committed before the commencement of the Law are to be tried by judge sitting with jurats, not by jury; there is no discretion to direct otherwise.

Citation
[2009] JRC 166
Parties
Applicant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Respondent: Welsh; Respondent: Warren; Respondent: Other represented defendants
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Statutory Interpretation Ruling
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Mode of Trial, Retrospective Application, Inchoate Offences, Customary Law

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Applicant

Welsh

Respondent

Warren

Respondent

Other represented defendants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Statutory Interpretation Ruling

  1. 1 Interpretation of Article 1 of the Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 regarding mode of trial for offences committed before commencement
  2. 2 Whether defendants are entitled to trial by jury or by judge and jurats under the new law
  3. 3 Retrospective effect of statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph (4) of Article 1 of the 2009 Law requires that defendants charged with customary law offences committed before the commencement of the Law are to be tried by judge sitting with jurats, not by jury; there is no discretion to direct otherwise.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Trial of defendants to take place before judge sitting with jurats
  • Leave to appeal granted on condition that notices of appeal are filed by close of business on Friday 21st August