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 >> AG -v- Highfield [2009] JRC 073 (17 April 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2009/2009_073.html Cite as: [2009] JRC 073, [2009] JRC 73 |
||
[New search] [Help]
[2009]JRC073
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
17thApril 2009
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Le Cornu and Newcombe. |
The Attorney General
-v-
John Michael Highfield
BAIL APPLICATION.
C. M. M. Yates Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate C. G. Parslow for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. The defendant applies for bail pending his being sentenced for 3 charges of assault and grave and criminal assault; sentencing to take place on 22nd May. The defendant has a long history of mental illness and has a bad record. He has been in custody since November 2008; the delay to the current date being caused by concerns over his fitness to plead.
2. His victims are his family, and the incidents which he has admitted and pleaded guilty to were very serious, albeit no doubt committed when he was ill. We have received a psychiatric report dated 12th April, which confirms that he is currently fit to plead. That confirmation has been made on the basis of an improvement caused by a change in his medication whilst recently at Orchard House. It is on the basis of that improvement that this application for bail is made but, it is quite clear from the report, that his improvement is entirely dependant on his continuing the medication that he is currently being given and he has a poor record in that respect. Furthermore he has a poor record of committing further offences whilst on bail.
3. The psychiatrist recommends that, given his history of violence, the defendant receive psychiatric treatment in a mental health hospital, of at least low if not medium security. She says that would enable the defendant to have a wide variety of treatment including nursing care, counselling from nursing staff regarding his mental health and treatment, medication, medical reviews of his mental state to ensure his medication is optimal, an occupational therapy programme to maintain and support skills of daily living and psychological treatment which, in the defendant's case, should include an assessment of his personality, a structured risk assessment in order to inform risk management strategies, substance misuse, prevention work and offending behaviour work including victim empathy.
4. Sadly we have no power to make an order to put any of that into effect. He cannot remain at Orchard House, where he was, until recently, under 24 hour guard because he has stabilised. He has now returned to the prison where there is no psychiatric wing. The result is that he is often kept in isolation. The situation is very unsatisfactory to say the least. However that is the situation which we face and we have no doubt that his release would give rise to a serious danger of his re-offending and in particular a danger to his family, who have no idea that this application is being made.
5. With great regret we have no alternative but to refuse the application. The defendant is remanded in custody until 22nd May, 2009 for sentencing.
