Michel v Att. Gen. [2007] JLR_Note 54 (25 October 2006)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Note / Summary
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The case concerns the principle that a fair trial must be free from actual or apparent bias.
02
Material facts
Parties
Michel
ApplicantAttorney General
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Note / Summary
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
whether there was apparent bias affecting the fairness of the trial
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
general principle of criminal procedure
A fair trial requires the absence of actual or apparent bias.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The case concerns the principle that a fair trial must be free from actual or apparent bias.
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 >> Michel v Att. Gen. [2007] JLR_Note 54 (25 October 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2006/JLR07N054.html Cite as: [2007] JLR_Note 54 [ New search ] [ Help ] Michel v Att. Gen. 2007 JLR Note 54 (25 October 2006) Criminal Procedure-fair trial-bias-apparent bias 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: 2007 JLR Note 54 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2006/JLR07N054.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.