1999/13 - AG v Young [1999] UR 13 (22 January 1999)

1999/13 - AG v Young [1999] UR 13 (22 January 1999)

The trial judge correctly directed the Jurats that the arrangements constituted 'arrangements' under Article 12(c) as the facts were undisputed; Article 12(c) does not require proof of intention to induce beyond knowledge of falsity; and there was no evidence that media or civil proceedings prejudiced the fairness of the trial.

Citation
[1999] UR 13
Parties
Respondent: AG; Appellant: Robert John Young
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial and Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Misleading Statements, Investment Schemes, Appeal Procedure, Mens Rea, Media Prejudice, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Fraud Misleading Statements Investment Schemes Appeal Procedure Mens Rea Media Prejudice +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AG

Respondent

Robert John Young

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in directing the Jurats that the arrangements constituted 'arrangements' under Article 12(c) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud) (Jersey) Law 1967 as a matter of law
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution was required to prove intention to induce as an element of the offence under Article 12(c)
  3. 3 Whether prejudicial media coverage and civil proceedings rendered the trial unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly directed the Jurats that the arrangements constituted 'arrangements' under Article 12(c) as the facts were undisputed; Article 12(c) does not require proof of intention to induce beyond knowledge of falsity; and there was no evidence that media or civil proceedings prejudiced the fairness of the trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed