AG v Manson and Mckenzie [2000] JRC 34 (25 February 2000)

AG v Manson and Mckenzie [2000] JRC 34 (25 February 2000)

Strong mitigation, including positive conduct and lack of or limited prior convictions, justifies binding the defendants over to be of good behaviour for two years instead of imposing a financial penalty or custodial sentence.

Citation
[2000] JRC 34
Parties
Defendant: Mr Manson; Defendant: Miss Mackenzie; Prosecution: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
defendants bound over to be of good behaviour for two years
Legal Topics
Public Order, Resisting Police, Sentencing, Mitigation
Criminal Law Public Order Resisting Police Sentencing Mitigation

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Manson

Defendant

Miss Mackenzie

Defendant

The Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 appropriate sentence for public order incident involving resisting or obstructing police
  2. 2 consideration of mitigation in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

Strong mitigation, including positive conduct and lack of or limited prior convictions, justifies binding the defendants over to be of good behaviour for two years instead of imposing a financial penalty or custodial sentence.

Court Disposition

defendants bound over to be of good behaviour for two years

Orders

  • Both defendants are bound over for two years to be of good behaviour.