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 >> 1999/60 - AG v Sheridan [1999] UR 60 (26 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/60.html Cite as: [1999] UR 60 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
26 March 1999
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff,
and Jurats Le Ruez and de Veulle
AG
-v-
Anthony Luke Sheridan
Application for Review of Refusal of Bail in the Magistrates Court on 17 March 1999
On 11 May 1998,the applicant was convicted on 1 count of larceny and was bound over for 12 months.
On 23 November 1998 the applicant was convicted on 1 count of receiving, hiding or withholding stolen property and was placed on probation for 1 year with 45 hours of community service; the binding over order of 11 May 1998 to continue without penalty.
On 11 January 1999, the applicant reserved his plea to 1 count of breaking & entering and causing malicious damage and was remanded on a warning.
On 29 January 1999, the applicant reserved his plea to 1 count of larceny, and was remanded in custody until 17 February 1999.
On 17 February 1999, made a successful bail application and was remanded on a warning until 17 March 1999.
On 17 March 1999, the applicant reserved his plea to 1 count of obstructing a Police Officer in the execution of his duty and was remanded in custody for 28 days. Bail was refused.
Application refused
AG
Advocate NF Journeaux for the Applicant
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: As the Court has often said when applications of this kind are made and the Court is invited to review the decision of the Magistrate it is not for the Court to substitute its own view of the matter but it must ask itself whether the Magistrate has erred in some way or has reached a decision which is unreasonable in all the circumstances. This is an applicant who is in breach of a binding over order, in breach of a probation order and who has allegedly twice committed further offences whilst on remand. Not only do we consider the Magistrate's decision was not unreasonable but we consider that the Magistrate's decision was absolutely right and the application is accordingly dismissed.
Authorities
AG-v-Moore, McCaffrey. (24 January 1997) Jersey Unreported
