BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/114 - AG v Munro [1999] UR 114 (18 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/114.html Cite as: [1999] UR 114 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
18 June 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Rumfitt and Georgelin
AG
v
Paul Munro
Application for review of refusal of Bail
by the Magistrate’s Court
On 18th December, 1998: the applicant pleaded not guilty to:
1 count of concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug (amphetamine sulphate) contrary to Article 5 (c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (count 1); 1 count of knowingly permitting smoking of cannabis, contrary to Article 9 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (count 2); 1 count of conspiring with others to import cannabis, amphetamine sulphate, and cocaine in contravention of Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (count 3).
and guilty to:
1 count of possession of a controlled drug (cannabis resin), contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (count 4). Bail was refused and again on 24 December 1998. On 13 January 1999: the applicant changed his plea and reserved his pleas to all 4 counts and was remanded in custody without bail option. On 10 February 1999: the applicant reserved his plea to further count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, and was remanded in custody without bail option, and again on 10 March, 7 March, 5 May, 1999.
On 11 May 1999: the applicant was remanded in custody for trial by the Royal Court without bail option.
Application refused
P. Matthews, Crown Advocate
Advocate A D Robinson for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: In the case of AG v Skinner (26 June 1994) Jersey Unreported, the Court said:
"Before this Court can interfere with a refusal by the Magistrate to grant bail we have to be satisfied that either the Magistrate positively misdirected himself, or the proceedings were irregular, or that he gave a decision which no reasonable Magistrate could properly have given."
We are talking here about the conspiracy to attempt to bring into Jersey 50 kilograms of cannabis and 3 kilograms of amphetamine or speed. Now, the consequences of being found guilty of those offences will no doubt lead to very long terms of imprisonment and it is perfectly clear that one of the matters which a Court can take into account is the penalty that might be imposed in respect of serious offences and that is what the case of AG v Makarios (1978) JJ. 215, is all about.
What the learned Magistrate said when he came to give his decision, having listened no doubt with his usual care to the arguments of Advocate Robinson who presented the application for bail, was this:
"Thank you, Mr. Robinson, I have listened very carefully to what you have urged upon me. I refuse bail in this instance on the Makarios principles. I see a distinction to be drawn between the case of Travis and the case of this defendant and I am not willing to grant bail."
We do not feel that the Magistrate can possibly have impinged upon the grounds of Skinner to enable us to interfere here. He made his decision, we certainly cannot find that his decision is irregular or fell within any of the Skinner grounds and accordingly bail is refused.
Authorities
AG v Skinner (26 June 1994) Jersey Unreported.
AG v Makarios (1978) JJ. 215.
