Sign in
Jersey Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Jersey Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Jersey decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law [2022] JRC 030

AG v Ibbet

AG v Ibbet [2022] JRC 030 (08 February 2022)

The court held that the defendant’s state of mind could be relevant to the Article 59 inquiry and refused to exclude police interviews under Article 76.

  • Unfitness to plead
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Mens rea
  • Police interviews
  • Exclusion of evidence
  • Unfitness-to-plead
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2021] JRC 052

B v AG 18-Feb-2021

B v AG 18-Feb-2021 [2021] JRC 052 (18 February 2021)

The Royal Court allowed an appeal against refusal to vacate a guilty plea for common assault, holding the plea was not unequivocal and staying further prosecution.

  • Guilty plea
  • Vacating plea
  • Assault
  • Intermediary appointment
  • Fair trial
  • Mens rea
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2020] JRC 162

AG v Bulpin

AG v Bulpin [2020] JRC 162 (11 August 2020)

The Royal Court held that making indecent images of children can include deliberate downloading to a device’s cache, without proof the defendant knew how cache storage worked.

  • Indecent images
  • Child protection
  • Digital evidence
  • Mens rea
  • Making offence
  • Indecent-images
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2018] JRC 014

Queree -v- AG

Queree -v- AG [2018] JRC 014 (18 January 2018)

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an indecent assault conviction, holding the evidence did not prove clear withdrawal of consent or indecency.

  • Indecent assault
  • Consent in sexual offences
  • Evidentiary admissibility
  • Judicial recusal
  • Standard of proof
  • Mens rea
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2014] JRC 088

AG -v- X

AG -v- X [2014] JRC 088 (02 April 2014)

The Jersey Royal Court held that gross indecency is not a strict liability offence and that motive or sexual satisfaction need not be proved. The no-case submission was rejected.

  • Gross indecency
  • Mens rea
  • Strict liability
  • Indecency with children
  • Criminal-law
  • Gross-indecency
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2013] 2 JLR 471

Att. Gen. v Coote

Att. Gen. v Coote [2013] 2 JLR 471 (21 November 2013)

The court held that expert psychiatric evidence of a defendant’s low IQ may be admitted where it is relevant to assessing the defendant’s evidence or whether mens rea is established.

  • Expert evidence
  • Psychiatric evidence
  • Mens rea
  • Expert-evidence
  • Psychiatric-evidence
  • Mens-rea
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2010] JLR 313

Hamilton v Att. Gen.

Hamilton v Att. Gen. [2010] JLR 313 (21 July 2010)

The Jersey court held that mens rea for importing prohibited goods is made out if the accused believed he was importing drugs or drug-related money, even if mistaken about the type.

  • Importation of prohibited goods
  • Mens rea
  • Drug trafficking
  • Customs and excise (jersey) law 1999
  • Criminal-law
  • Mens-rea
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2010] JCA 136A

Hamilton and Owens v AG

Hamilton and Owens v AG [2010] JCA 136A (21 July 2010)

The Court of Appeal dismissed Hamilton and Owens’s challenges to conviction and sentence for knowingly assisting the fraudulent importation of cocaine into Jersey.

  • Drug importation
  • Mens rea
  • Fair trial
  • Sentencing
  • Hearsay evidence
  • Criminal-law
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2010] JRC 121

AG -v- Hamilton and Owens

AG -v- Hamilton and Owens [2010] JRC 121 (01 July 2010)

Jersey sentencing decision for two young offenders convicted of importing cocaine. The court held their mistaken belief that they were importing money did not alter sentence.

  • Drug importation
  • Sentencing
  • Mens rea
  • Youth offenders
  • Criminal-sentencing
  • Drug-importation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2010] JCA 092

De La Haye v AG

De La Haye v AG [2010] JCA 092 (18 May 2010)

The Jersey Court of Appeal held that recklessness is sufficient mens rea for grave and criminal assault, and that the related charges were not an abuse of process.

  • Grave and criminal assault
  • Mens rea
  • Recklessness
  • Dangerous driving
  • Abuse of process
  • Mens-rea
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Jersey decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.