Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC213

royal court

(Samedi Division)

24^th November 2010

Before     :

Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner, sitting alone.

 

Advocate M. St. J. O'Connell for the Appellant.

Advocate C. M. M. Yates for the Respondent.

judgment

the commissioner:

1.        I have before me an application made on behalf of the Appellant, Philip Eric De Figueiredo, for leave to appeal the judgment which I delivered earlier this month.

2.        I have read the relevant Article 52 in the Extradition (Jersey) Law 2004, under the rubric "Further appeal to Privy Council".  It appears from that Article that an appeal lies only with the leave of the Royal Court or the Privy Council.  Paragraph (4) of the Article provides that:-

"Leave to appeal under this Article shall not be granted unless -

(a) the Royal Court has certified that there is a point of law of general public importance involved in the decision; and

(b) it appears to the court granting leave that the point is one that ought to be considered by the Privy Council."

3.        What I have to consider, for the purposes of this application, is whether it has been shown, to my satisfaction, that there is a point of law of general public importance involved in my decision.  The original notice of application for leave analysed the point of law in these terms:-

"The erroneous findings of the Royal Court that the requirements of Article 32 of the Law had been complied with and that there were specialty arrangements in place between the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Commonwealth of Australia within the meaning of Article 32 of the Law."

4.        Following the Respondent's answer to that application I received the Appellant's skeleton argument in support of the application.  That sought to amplify the point of law and indeed developed it into no fewer than 9 points of law, contained in paragraphs 5.1 - 5.9 of the skeleton argument.  I have been addressed on each of those points, skilfully if I may say so and at length, though I do not complain of that in the slightest, by Advocate O'Connell on behalf of the Applicant and I have received submissions in response from Advocate Jowitt on behalf of the Respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia. 

5.        I am bound to say that some of the so-called points of law are of very dubious merit, I refer in particular to those contained in paragraph 5.8 and 5.9.  What I have to consider is whether there is any merit, dubious or not, in the remaining sub-paragraphs. 

6.        I conclude that there is not.  I have listened, as I say, now for over one hour, and I make no complaint about it, to the submissions made on either side, I am quite unable to distil from those submissions anything that I could properly certify as being a point of law of general public importance which was involved in my decision. 

7.        Accordingly I refuse the application.

Authorities

Extradition (Jersey) Law 2004.