Michel -v- AG [2009] JCA 099 (19 May 2009)

Michel -v- AG [2009] JCA 099 (19 May 2009)

The costs order was compensatory, not punitive; the court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; the Commissioner was entitled to take into account the increased value of assets held by the Viscount; the sum was ascertainable; and there was no error in the exercise of discretion warranting interference.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] JCA 099
Parties
Applicant: Peter Wilson Michel; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Confiscation, Appeals, Sentencing
Criminal Law Costs Orders Confiscation Appeals Sentencing

Source-derived case record

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Wilson Michel

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had power to order interest on costs
  2. 2 Whether the costs order was punitive rather than compensatory
  3. 3 Whether the percentage of costs attributable to the applicant was properly increased

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order was compensatory, not punitive; the court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; the Commissioner was entitled to take into account the increased value of assets held by the Viscount; the sum was ascertainable; and there was no error in the exercise of discretion warranting interference.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against the costs order is refused.
  • No increase in costs order as sought by the Crown.