THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: In the case of AG v Skinner (26 June 1994) Jersey Unreported, the Court said:
"Before this Court can interfere with a refusal by the Magistrate to grant bail we have to 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."
We are talking here about the conspiracy to attempt to bring into Jersey 50 kilograms of cannabis and 3 kilograms of amphetamine or speed. Now, the consequences of being found guilty of those offences will no doubt lead to very long terms of imprisonment and it is perfectly clear that one of the matters which a Court can take into account is the penalty that might be imposed in respect of serious offences and that is what the case of AG v Makarios (1978) JJ. 215, is all about.
What the learned Magistrate said when he came to give his decision, having listened no doubt with his usual care to the arguments of Advocate Robinson who presented the application for bail, was this:
"Thank you, Mr. Robinson, I have listened very carefully to what you have urged upon me. I refuse bail in this instance on the Makarios principles. I see a distinction to be drawn between the case of Travis and the case of this defendant and I am not willing to grant bail."
We do not feel that the Magistrate can possibly have impinged upon the grounds of Skinner to enable us to interfere here. He made his decision, we certainly cannot find that his decision is irregular or fell within any of the Skinner grounds and accordingly bail is refused.
Authorities
AG v Skinner (26 June 1994) Jersey Unreported.
AG v Makarios (1978) JJ. 215.