Le Flock -v- AG [2005] JRC 110 (11 August 2005)

Le Flock -v- AG [2005] JRC 110 (11 August 2005)

The appeal was allowed because material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, particularly regarding the manner and side of the alleged assault and the absence of injury, created a real doubt as to whether the Appellant committed the assault. The conviction was therefore unsafe.

Citation
[2005] JRC 110
Parties
Appellant: Mr Le Flock; Complainant: Prison Officer David Davies; Trial Judge: Assistant Magistrate
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Common Assault, Appeal Against Conviction, Assessment of Evidence
Criminal Law Common Assault Appeal Against Conviction Assessment of Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Le Flock

Appellant

Prison Officer David Davies

Complainant

Assistant Magistrate

Trial Judge

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for common assault was supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the inconsistencies in witness testimony created reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, particularly regarding the manner and side of the alleged assault and the absence of injury, created a real doubt as to whether the Appellant committed the assault. The conviction was therefore unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction for common assault set aside