OO v AG [2024] JRC 240 (08 November 2024)

OO v AG [2024] JRC 240 (08 November 2024)

It was unreasonable to impose a compensation order against the Father because he was not responsible for the Appellant's day-to-day care nor able to influence his behaviour, and there was no causative link or fault sufficient to justify liability.

Citation
[2024] JRC 240
Parties
Appellant: OO; Respondent: B; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
08 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Compensation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compensation Orders, Parental Responsibility, Voluntary Accommodation, Malicious Damage
Criminal Law Youth Justice Compensation Orders Parental Responsibility Voluntary Accommodation Malicious Damage

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OO

Appellant

B

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Compensation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonable to impose a compensation order against the parent of a child accommodated by the Minister under Article 17 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002
  2. 2 Interpretation of Article 3(4) of the Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994

Ratio Decidendi

It was unreasonable to impose a compensation order against the Father because he was not responsible for the Appellant's day-to-day care nor able to influence his behaviour, and there was no causative link or fault sufficient to justify liability.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The compensation order of £150 against the Father is set aside.