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- Moon [2016] JRC 214A (18 November 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2016/2016_214A.html Cite as: [2016] JRC 214A |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
Sir Michael Birt, Commissioner., sitting as a Single Judge |
The Attorney General
-v-
Robert John Ingram Moon
C. R. Baglin, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate L. J. Glynn for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. I am going to deal first with costs. Where a prosecution is not proceeded with then the starting point is that the prosecution are likely to be ordered to pay the costs. The principles were set out in AG-v-Gouveia [2000] JLR 324 and I apply those principles. In this case, although the prosecution has proceeded on the harassment charge, all the others have not been proceeded with. It is an unusual case though, because it is not that the prosecution have decided that there is insufficient evidence or there has been an acquittal or that they have decided not to proceed on the grounds of public interest, which is something they might have known from the outset. This is a case where the defence have raised the issue of mental capacity. I think it entirely proper that the prosecution were proceeding until receipt of Dr Harrison's report on 19th May which raised that issue.
2. I also think it entirely reasonable that the prosecution should have taken time to get a report of their own in order to see whether the opinion of Dr Harrison was supported. However, I do not think it reasonable that they waited as long as they did. I understand why they did, and it is clear that there were a number of discussions going on. But it is not ultimately purely a question of reasonableness. It is very often reasonable for the prosecution to prosecute but when they lose they have to pay the costs. In my judgment fairness suggests that we should allow say six weeks from 19th May for the prosecution to think about things and instruct another expert and get a report. That would take us up to end of June. I think therefore that the fair order here is that the prosecution should pay the defence costs in relation to the charges which have not been proceeded with from the beginning of July.
