The Attorney General v Ian Joseph Ellis

CourtRoyal Court
JudgeJ. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E.
Judgment Date04 November 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] JRC 220
Date04 November 2019

[2019] JRC 220




J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner sitting alone

The Attorney General
Ian Joseph Ellis

Advocate M. T. Jowitt for the Representor.

Advocate P. G. Nicholls for the Respondent.


AG v Ellis [2019] JRC 219.

Crociani v Crociani [2014] (1) JLR 426.

Forfeiture of Assets (Civil Proceedings) (Jersey) Law 2018.

In re Désastre Blue Horizon Holdings Limited [1997] JLR 124.

Forfeiture of assets — application for leave to appeal


On 31 st October 2019, I handed down my judgment ( AG v Ellis [2019] JRC 219, I will refer to it as the Second Judgment) on the issue of proportionality and the burden of proof. I found that proportionality did arise in the facts of this case, and that the burden of proof lay upon the Attorney General to satisfy the Court that the forfeiture order he sought was proportionate.


Advocate Jowitt, on behalf of the Attorney General, seeks leave to appeal both of these findings, taking the view that my decision was interlocutory in nature.


The grounds upon which leave to appeal can be granted were summarised by the Court of Appeal in Crociani v Crociani [2014] (1) JLR 426, namely that the applicant for leave has to show that (a) the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success; (b) a question of general principle was to be decided for the first time; or (c) there was an important question of law upon which further argument and the decision of the Court of Appeal would be to the public advantage.


I was provisionally of the view that leave should be granted, because this is the first time that the Court has been asked to construe the Forfeiture of Assets (Civil Proceedings) (Jersey) Law 2018(“the Forfeiture of Assets Law”) and a decision of the Court of Appeal on the two issues raised in the Second Judgment would be to the public advantage.


However, Article 11 of the Forfeiture of Assets Law is supposed to be a summary procedure. The amount in the account at Standard Chartered Bank (“the Account”) is just under £34,000 and the respondent cannot claim costs against the Attorney General, save where the Attorney General can be proved to be acting in bad faith, and there is no such suggestion here (Article 29(4) of the Forfeiture of Assets Law). The respondent, therefore, has to fund his legal representation out of his own resources, and Advocate Nicholls informed me...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • The Attorney General v Ian Joseph Ellis
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 1 June 2020
    ...AG v Ellis [2019] JRC 141. Ahmed v HMRC [2013] EWHC 2241 (Admin) AG v Ellis [2019] JRC 219. Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961 AG v Ellis [2019] JRC 220. Crociani v. Crociani [2014] (1) JLR 426. In the Matter of the Désastre of Blue Horizon Holidays [1997] JLR 124. Gosselin v. Minister of S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT