Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2 March 1998

Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats

Gruchy and Le Ruez

AG

- v -

Dorset Street Holdings, Limited

Nigel Anthony Barette

Dorset Street Holdings, Limited

1 count of contravening Article 14(1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, by failing to comply with a condition imposed by Part III of the said Law, attaching to a Housing Committee Consent, of 16 November 1990, to the purchase of a property, that the said property should not, without the Committees consent, be let unfurnished or occupied by persons other than those specified in Regulation (1)(1)(a)-(h) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1970, (count 1);

3 counts of contravening Article 7(1) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1949, by entering into a transaction to which Part III of the said Law applies (counts 2, 3, 4).

Plea: Facts admitted.

Conclusions:

Count 1 : £750 fine

Count 2 : £100 fine

Count 3 : £25 fine

Count 4 : £25 fine

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Count 1 : £500 fine

Count 2 : £100 fine

Count 3 : £25 fine

Count 4 : £25 fine, £500 costs

Nigel Anthony Barette

1 count of contravening Article 14(1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, by knowingly consenting or conniving in the offence committed by Dorset Street Holdings, Limited specified in count 1 above; as a director of the said company (count 5);

3 counts of contravening Article 7(1) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, by knowingly consenting or conniving in the offences committed by Dorset Street Holdings, Limited, specified in counts 2, 3 and 4 above, as a director of the said company (counts 6, 7, 8).

Age: 34

Plea: Facts admitted

Conclusions:

Count 5 : £750 fine

Count 6 : £100 fine

Count 7 : £25 fine

Count 8 : £25 fine

2 weeks imprisonment in default of payment

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Count 5 : £500 fine

Count 6 : £100 fine

Count 7: £25 fine

Count 8 : £25 fine

Both accused:

Conclusions:

Contribution towards costs of £500. Two weeks imprisonment in default. Crown explained that discrepancy between count 2 and counts 3 and 4 viz any consent which might be forthcoming under Regulation 5 was discretionary, whereas consent by virtue of qualifying under Regulation 1(1)(a) was mandatory.

Details of Offence:

Mr Barette wholly owned the defendant company. Both made defendants in accordance with Article 14(1A) of the 1949 Law. Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 were "mirrored" and counts 5, 6, 7 and 8. Counts 1 and 5 - the defendants allowed a Portuguese family without housing qualifications to occupy the material premises for two years in contravention of the conditions attached to the consent to purchase. Counts 2 and 6 - the defendants allowed an individual to occupy without applying for consent. The occupier would probably have qualified under Regulation 5(1)(b)(ii) but no application was made. Counts 3, 4, 6 and 7 related to failure to apply for exemption certificates in respect of Jersey born persons occupying the property.

Details of Mitigation:

Mr Barette co-operative. He seemed to think that having a qualified tenant regularised the position without the need to seek Housing approval. The Court found this difficult to accept, noting that Mr Barette was a Jersey born person.

Previous Convictions:

Motoring offences and two offences of failing to deliver contribution schedules to the Social Security Department. The company had a previous conviction under the Parish Rate (Administration) (Jersey) Law, 1946. All the above were dealt with in the Magistrates Court by way of fine.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Mr Barette should have known the Law. At no time did he provide services or keep a police register. Had he taken advice he could easily have rectified the situation. The Court agreed with aggregating the fines in respect of "mirrored" offences.

Mrs S Sharpe, Crown Advocate

Advocate FJ Benest for Dorset Street Holdings, Ltd and for NA Barette

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: When the company owned by Mr Barette purchased the property, 1 Columbus Street, the Housing consent contained what we can safely refer to as three standard conditions. Once Mr Barette moved out of the property his erstwhile lodgers became illegal occupants. He moved out because of the collapse of a ceiling in the attic which he occupied and apparently he checked the matter with Housing. There is no record of that but we have heard from Mr Sugden and we give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr Gilbert, the Lessee to whom counts 2 and 6 refer, clearly knew more of the law than Mr Barette, although he was not - like Mr Barette - Jersey born. He apparently filled in the yellow form but that failed to reach the Department. At that point Mr Barette should have known, in our view, that he was in breach of the law. He failed to file exemption forms for the next two Jersey-born tenants. Moreover, at no time did he provide services or keep a Police Register. Had he not been aware of his obligations he could not only have done all these things but he could so easily have obtained advice.

We have looked very carefully at the case of AG -v- Saunter (10 January 1997) Jersey Unreported and we cannot reduce a fine on the ground that consent would have been forthcoming if it had been applied for. However, we agree the ‘mirroring’ of the charges between Mr Barette and the company but we are going to reduce the fine slightly on the first count. On counts 1 and 5 the fine will be £500 on each count; on counts 2 and 6 the fine will be £100 on each count; on counts 3 and 7 the fine will be £25 on each count; on counts 4 and 8 the fine will be £25 on each count, making a total of £1,300. There shall be a contribution of £500 towards the prosecutions costs and we order two weeks in custody in default of payment.

Authorities

AG -v- Geest, Ltd (14 February 1997) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Saunter (10 January 1997) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Troys Estate Agency, Ltd (16 May 1997) Jersey Unreported