Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 201-
Report
- Introductory
The Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994 (the “1994 Law”) made new provision to empower Jersey’s criminal courts to order the payment of compensation by persons convicted of crime and for connected purposes. Certain deficiencies in the 1994 Law were recently brought to the attention of the Legislation Advisory Panel by H.M. Attorney General, and the purpose of this Projet de Loi is to address the matters raised by him – none of which is thought to be contentious.
- Default sentences – length
Under Article 3 of the 1994 Law when a court makes a compensation order it may allow time for payment of the amount due under the order. It may direct payment by instalments; and there is a power to fix a term of imprisonment (known as a “default sentence”) which the convicted person will undergo if a sum in not paid on time. Article 3 stipulates however that a default sentence must not exceed –
(a) 6 months in the Magistrate’s Court or the Youth Court (or on appeal from those Courts); or
(b) 12 months in the Royal Court.
These caps on the length of default sentences are thought to be deficient in two respects:
- In the Magistrate’s Court
The Magistrate has jurisdiction to imprison offenders for up to 12 months. But at the time the 1994 Law was enacted, this jurisdiction was limited to 6 months which is presumably why the cap of 6 months was applied to default sentences as described above. Logically, when the ordinary jurisdiction of the Magistrate was increased from 6 months to 12 months,[1] the period of 6 months referred to in Article 3 of the 1994 Law for default sentences ought to have been increased to 12 months as well.
The draft Law would now effect that change (by linking the maximum default sentence to the maximum jurisdiction of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment).
The amount of a compensation order made by the Royal Court is potentially unlimited; but no matter how large the compensation order may be – some have been in excess of £60,000[2] – the default sentence cannot exceed 12 months. The Legislation Advisory Panel could see no reason why the hands of the Royal Court should be tied in this way, and concluded that the length of the default sentence could properly be left to the discretion of the Royal Court. Under Article 6 of the 1994 Law, a defendant has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against a default sentence, and therefore is able to challenge a default sentence if he or she believes it to be excessive.
The draft Law would effect that change i.e. it would remove the maximum term of 12 months able to be fixed by the Royal Court as a default sentence.
- Review of compensation orders – extensions of time
Article 7 of the 1994 Law empowers the courts to review earlier compensation orders. The defendant may apply to the court to discharge or reduce the amount payable in cases where –
(a) damages have been assessed at a lesser figure in other civil proceedings;
(b) relevant property has been recovered by the victim;
(c) there has been a sudden large reduction in the defendant’s means, which is unlikely to be made up in the foreseeable future.
A doubt arose in a recent application to the Royal Court under Article 7 as to whether the Court had power to grant an extension of time within which to pay the relevant compensation order (as opposed to discharging or reducing the amount payable under the order). In the event the Court held that it did have power to grant the desired extension, but intimated that it would be helpful if a brief amendment of Article 7 of the 1994 Law could be passed to make the position clear on the fact of the Law.
The draft Law contains the necessary provision to make it clear that “… the court which made the compensation order may, on the application of the [relevant] person, vary the time allowed for payment of the amount which remains to be paid, including any date by which any instalment must be paid.”
- Miscellaneous drafting points
Nothing can usefully be added to the draftsman’s explanatory note which refers to the correction of 2 cross-references in Article 6 of the 1994 Law and an amendment clarifying the right of a parent or guardian to apply to the court under Article 7 of the 1994 Law for a compensation order to be reviewed (where the parent of guardian is liable to pay the amount due).
Financial and manpower implications
There are no manpower or financial implications for the States of Jersey arising from this draft Law.
gov.je