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 >> 1998/256A - AG v S A Comer [1998] UR 256A (23 December 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/256A.html Cite as: [1998] UR 256A |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
23 December 1998
F C Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats de Veulle and Le Brocq
AG
-v-
Stephen Anthony Comer
Application for review of Magistrates refusal of bail on
18 December 1998
On 16 November 1998 the applicant reserved his pleas to 2 counts of grave and criminal assault and to 1 count of theft of a lock knife, and was remanded in custody without bail option.
On 23 November3, 5 and 18 December, 1998:remanded in custody; no bail option.
P Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate Miss N Langlois for the applicant
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: In deciding whether to interfere with the refusal by the Magistrate to grant bail we must 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. All that is clearly set out in the case of AG -v- Skinner (24 June 1994) Jersey Unreported.
Because it is cited so often in this Court, it may also be useful if we set out the conclusions in the case of AG -v- Makarios (1979) JJ 215 which read as follows:
"Upon hearing the applicant through the intermediary of his advocate and upon hearing the Solicitor General, acting Attorney General the Court held that when an application to be admitted to bail is made by any accused the gravity of the offence is a matter to which the Court, to which the application is made is entitled to have regard independent of the question of whether or not he will surrender to his bail".
Miss Langlois has prepared a very careful skeleton argument which she has amplified in Court today but with respect to her it raises little that was not fully argued in the lower Court.
Comer now says that he will stay in Jersey if granted bail, as he could not now afford a flight to rejoin his family.
Mr Matthews has repeated the facts: this was allegedly a serious assault which lasted over a considerable period of time. We need to remind ourselves that assaut grave et criminelle does not require physical contact, - although there was, apparently, some in this case. Fear by the complainant is quite sufficient and if we may say so that fear permeates the statements that we have read.
As to the question of identity, this is not a place for a trial nor a place to take a firm view but we are satisfied that there was more than sufficient preliminary argument before the Magistrate on this point. We have heard further evidence concerning Miss Petito, one of the witnesses, and the blue car which the police allege Comer was driving at the time. But these are really matters for trial in due course. We have no doubt that the Magistrate exercised his discretion properly and the application is accordingly refused.
Authorities
AG -v- Skinner (24 June 1994) Jersey Unreported
AG -v- Makarios (1979).JJ 215
