There is a further matter. Dr Young was refused bail on 26 August 1998, on and application which he presented on his own behalf. Subsequently the application was renewed and that was rejected by the Royal Court, presided over by Sir Peter Crill as a Commissioner, on the grounds that at that stage Dr. Young was not an appellant, or indeed an applicant, having not yet obtained an extension of time. The matter has been briefly mentioned to me today but I have indicated that as at present advised I see difficulty in my reaching the conclusion today either that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Royal Court refusing bail, or that the Court of Appeal itself may make an order granting bail. Those are matters which, prima facie, should first go to the Court below, for the Court below to consider in the light of the new circumstances, namely, that an extension of time has been granted, and insofar as Dr Young needs leave to appeal, he now has that leave. If any question arises in relation to bail, on which it is sought to argue at greater length and greater particularity, that this Court has either the jurisdiction or the power that I have mentioned, then that is a matter which must be brought before the full Court. It is not appropriate for me, as a single judge, to determine this question apparently for the first time, as it involves major questions of the practice of the Court and of the true interpretation of the statutory provisions by which the Court of Appeal is given its powers. I emphasize that, because the Court of Appeal is created by statute and does not have powers outside those which are given by the statute. Therefore, if Dr Young has any wish to renew an application for bail, he must go back to the Royal Court and renew his application there.
The only other matter I want to mention immediately is that the hearing of the appeal will be in the January sitting of this Court. Already a great deal of time has gone by, and I recall that soon after Advocate Begg became involved, on behalf of Dr Young, he wrote to the Court asking for an early date. In fact, a special sitting of the Court of Appeal was arranged for 23 November, to deal with, amongst other matters, this very application. It is unfortunate that the matter has not been able to be brought on then; but what I do want to emphasise is that the appeal must be heard in January, and there must be no question whatever of the appeal being heard at any later date than then. That means that Mr Begg and his client, must be ready by then and must meet the time limits which have been laid down by the Court of Appeal for the purposes of a hearing in January.
Authorities
Oberschlick -v- Austria A.204 1991
G -v- Austria No. 15975/90 DR.245 (1991)
Drew -v- AG (1994) JLR 1
La Solitude Farm -v- AG (1985-86) JLR 1 CofA
AG -v- Fossey, Burgess (2 December 1982) Jersey Unreported
Lesser [1939] 27 Cr.App.R. 69
Depositors and Investors (Prevention of Fraud) (Jersey) Law, 1967
Banking Business (Jersey) Law, 1991
Smitton & Ors. -v- AG (24 April 1994) Jersey Unreported CofA
Kirch, Lapidus -v- AG (1987-88) JLR N.97; (24 September 1987) Jersey Unreported CofA
Blackstone’s Criminal Practice A1 26
R -v- Mahanjoula (1995) 1 WLR 1348
AG -v- Young (26 August 1998) Jersey Unreported
Young -v- AG (22 October 1998) Jersey Unreported