Case History

J v AG 2003 (Deportation)

J v AG 2003 (Deportation)

The Charges

The Result

The Court undertook a balancing operation in deciding whether the detriment of the Applicant’s continued residence in Jersey was outweighed by hardship which would be caused to innocent third parties such as his family, taking into account the right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and concluded that it would not be proportionate to maintain the recommendation for deportation.

H v AG 2004 (Sentencing – Starting Points)

The Result

The appeal was partially successful, on grounds unconnected with the main issue dealt with by the Court of Appeal.

O’B v AG 2004 (Sentencing – Plea bargains)

The Result

Our client’s appeal against sentence was successful, partly because the Court of Appeal accepted our argument that he did have a legitimate expectation that the Crown would honour the agreement and that, though not bound by the plea bargain, the Royal Court should have taken it into account and should have paid more regard to his legitimate expectations in relying on the Attorney General’s bargain when pleading guilty. The Court of Appeal also made observations of general application on the issue of plea bargaining, relying to a large degree on the research we carried out in that area of the law, on which there was no Jersey authority.

S v AG 2006 (Criminal Law – Similar Fact Evidence)

The Result

The Court of Appeal ruled, following leading English case law, that the evidence would be admissible under the similar fact rule if its probative value outweighed the prejudice to accused arising from its admission. The facts relied on had to be similar, not necessarily identical. There is no requirement for a “signature” or special feature. Evidence could be admitted if is bore a striking similarity to the facts of the present case.

S v L 2008 (Family Law – Parallel Foreign Proceedings)

The Result

The court made it clear that it would not readily or lightly interfere with the functions of a foreign court, but it could, and would, exercise its power to protect its own process by making orders that affected the process of a foreign court, e.g. an anti-suit injunction or the order sought in those proceedings.