Michel and Gallichan v AG 25-0ct-2006 [2006] JCA 152 (25 October 2006)

Michel and Gallichan v AG 25-0ct-2006 [2006] JCA 152 (25 October 2006)

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the court found no real possibility of bias, the Commissioner applied the correct legal principles, there was ample evidence of dishonesty and fraudulent intent, directors can be guilty of fraudulent conversion against their own company, and the jury was properly directed on the law. The verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2006] JCA 152
Parties
Applicant: Peter Wilson Michel; Applicant: Simone Anne Gallichan; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Fraudulent Conversion, Theft, Bias, Case to Answer, Dishonesty, Accomplice Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Fraudulent Conversion Theft Bias Case to Answer Dishonesty Accomplice Evidence +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Wilson Michel

Applicant

Simone Anne Gallichan

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial was tainted by appearance of bias due to the prosecution opening and the Commissioner's remarks
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal tests in ruling on no case to answer
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the court found no real possibility of bias, the Commissioner applied the correct legal principles, there was ample evidence of dishonesty and fraudulent intent, directors can be guilty of fraudulent conversion against their own company, and the jury was properly directed on the law. The verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed