Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC006B

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th January 2008

Before     :

Sir Richard Tucker, Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle, and Le Breton.

The Attorney General

-v-

Curtis Warren

John Alan Welsh

James O'Brien

Jason Woodward

Paul Hunt

Oliver Lucas

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. L. Preston for Lucas.

The other Defendants were not present and were not represented.

Bail application for Lucas.

JUDGMENT

THE commisioner:

1.        As will I hope be apparent, the Court has given very anxious consideration to this application and we are very grateful to Advocate Preston and to Advocate Gollop for the help they have given us. 

2.        The matter arises as a second application for bail, the first application having been refused by the learned Deputy Bailiff on the 23^rd November, 2007.  It was refused in these terms:-

"we are satisfied that there are concerns which require us to refuse bail.  Firstly, in terms of re-offending, the fact is that the defendant has got a record in which he has committed a number of offences over a period.  Most significantly, he has committed offences whilst on bail.  We ignore the defective motor vehicle matters, but he committed further offences of possession of cannabis and using somebody else's licence to get alcohol whilst he was on bail for possession of cannabis.  That shows a disregard for the requirements of being on bail. In addition, he has breached a binding over order by re-offending.  So the defendant has unfortunately shown that he cannot be relied upon to adhere to conditions.  Furthermore we think that the position is different to that of a co-defendant named Woodward, because Woodward had one minor previous conviction and did not therefore have as many, nor had he re-offended while on bail.  So we have concluded there is a real risk of re-offending if bail is granted.  To a lesser extent we also think there is a risk of absconding.  We know he has strong local roots, but this is a very serious offence and he clearly has access to boats and so forth, so we think there is a lesser but material risk of that as well.  So I am afraid bail is refused."

3.        The matter now comes before us on a re-application and, as Advocate Preston has recognised, this is, and cannot be, an appeal against the refusal of bail on the previous occasion.  The Law is, as in England and in this jurisdiction, that before a later Court can consider such a re-application, it must be satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances.  A later Court is bound to accept the finding of fact made on the earlier occasion, otherwise it would be acting as an appellate Court, unless there was a material change of circumstances.  So it is not open to us to review the decision taken by the learned Deputy Bailiff, we can only interfere if there has been shown to our satisfaction a change of circumstances, and not only that but a material change of circumstances.

4.        Advocate Preston has urged us to say that there are three such changes.  First of all because there is an abuse of process application in train which may not be heard for some time.  Second, because it was mentioned on the last occasion that there may be further evidence adduced against the present defendant, and none has been advanced.  Third, a letter which he refers to and which is included in his bundle, of employment at a hotel referred to in that letter. 

5.        If there is a material change of circumstances that letter is the only possible hope on which the Defence could pin its case, but it does not appear to us that it does offer a material change.  The basis on which the learned Deputy Bailiff refused bail, and he was sitting, as I am, with learned Jurats on that occasion, was because of this defendant's irresponsibility towards his conditions, whether on bail or on any other terms of release.  He had shown himself to be quite irresponsible and had re-offended whilst on bail.  So far as those circumstances are concerned there can be no change, the position remains the same as before.

6.        Before parting with the case we wish to say that we have very great sympathy, as the learned Deputy Bailiff clearly did and his colleagues sitting with him, with the early home and domestic background of this young man, he suffered from severe domestic problems, we recognise those.  But he, unfortunately, is not alone in that and as to those, of course, there has been no change.

7.        We confirm that we do not see, in the offer of further employment or in the offer of further sureties, a change which could be described as a material change in circumstances.  So, I am afraid, Advocate Preston, despite your very great skill in presentation of the application, we have to refuse it.

No Authorities