Syvret v AG and Connetable of Grouville [2011] JRC 060A (18 March 2011)

Syvret v AG and Connetable of Grouville [2011] JRC 060A (18 March 2011)

Further disclosure is not ordered as all relevant material has been disclosed and additional requests are speculative or irrelevant to the issues in the appeal. The jurat system does not infringe Article 6(1) ECHR as it provides sufficient safeguards for independence and impartiality. The appellant was offered legal representation in accordance with local practice and his Article 6 rights were not breached.

Citation
[2011] JRC 060A
Parties
Appellant: Mr Syvret; Respondent: Crown Advocate Baker
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Rulings Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Applications for further disclosure, to call certain witnesses, and to challenge the jurat system and legal representation are all refused.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Abuse of Process, Right to Fair Trial, Legal Representation, Impartial Tribunal
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Procedural Law Disclosure Abuse of Process Right to Fair Trial Legal Representation Impartial Tribunal

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Syvret

Appellant

Crown Advocate Baker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Rulings Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure should be ordered
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution was an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the jurat system is compatible with Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Further disclosure is not ordered as all relevant material has been disclosed and additional requests are speculative or irrelevant to the issues in the appeal. The jurat system does not infringe Article 6(1) ECHR as it provides sufficient safeguards for independence and impartiality. The appellant was offered legal representation in accordance with local practice and his Article 6 rights were not breached.

Court Disposition

Applications for further disclosure, to call certain witnesses, and to challenge the jurat system and legal representation are all refused.

Orders

  • No further disclosure ordered.
  • Applications to call Dr Blackwood and Professor Hill as witnesses refused.