Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27 August 1999

Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and

Jurats Myles, Georgelin

AG

v

David John Richard

2 counts of: contravening Article 8 (1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964, by making a material change in the use of a garage, so that it was used as dwelling accommodation, without the permission of the Planning and Environment Committee. (counts 1,2); and

1 count of:knowingly/recklessly making false or misleading statements on an application form, submitted to the Planning and Environment Committee for the purposes of obtaining permission to develop land, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Island Planning (Jersey )Law 1964 count 3).

Age: over 21

Plea: Facts admitted

Details of Offence:

Accused permitted his daughter to occupy garage premises at his home initially for a period of some six months (charge 1) and again for a longer period of nineteen months (charge 2) which was unauthorised. He knew that he required and lacked the necessary consent of the Committee. On an application form for change of use, he stated that the garage premises were to be used to accommodate seasonal workers in connection with his business, which was false.

Details of Mitigation:

It was claimed that he defendant was only trying to help his daughter who could not find alternative accommodation. The Court rejected that argument as the defendant had paying lodgers living in the main house. However, a plea was made that the defendant was in difficult financial circumstances and unable to meet the fines sought by the Crown. No Affidavit of Means was produced but the Court was prepared to accept the figures advanced by Defence Counsel.

Regarding the false statement on the application form, it was said that it made no difference to the outcome of the application (which was refused). This was accepted by the Crown.

Previous Convictions: None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:£750 fine or 3 weeks imprisonment in default of payment.

Count 2:£1,000 fine or 4 weeks imprisonment in default of payment.

Count 3:£750 fine or 3 weeks imprisonment in default of payment.

£750 costs.

Sentence & Observations of Court:

Count 1:£375 fine or 3 weeks’ imprisonment in default of payment.

Count 2:£500 fine or 4 weeks’ imprisonment in default of payment.

Count 3:£375 fine or 3 weeks’ imprisonment in default of payment.

£350 costs.

Defendant given time to pay fines.

The Court observed that the Crown Advocate had correctly stated that this was a blatant breach of the Planning Law and the Court further stated that the fines sought by the Crown were absolutely correct in principle.

However, the Court reduced the level of fines sought because of the financial circumstances of the defendant.

A D Robinson, Crown Advocate

Advocate A P Roscouet for the Accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The Crown Advocate has described these offences as a blatant breach of the Planning Law and we have to agree.

The main house in which Mr Richard lives is a three bedroomed house, one bedroom is used as an office the other is the family bedroom, and the third bedroom is their son’s bedroom but he is at university and studying for an MA degree and has apparently been refused a grant by the Education Committee. Part of the house has been converted and on 2 March 1997 a Mr and Mrs Milne were living there as lodgers. Their rental, if that is what it is, has gone towards paying for the son’s further education.

Permission was obtained on 8 June 1984 to build a new garage for three vehicles plus a store and a WC. In January 1997 part of that garage was being used by the Richards’ daughter and her boyfriend as dwelling accommodation. Finding later that this was unauthorised they submitted a planning application form for alteration of the existing garage to accommodation for use by seasonal workers and a lean-to workshop extension with a new access so as to retain a portion of the existing garage.

Advocate Robinson has not said so but the main reason that planning applications are necessary is to ensure that the accommodation is safe and suitable for human habitation. This clearly was not. The photographs leave us in no doubt that the accommodation was sub-standard and would never have been passed by the Committee for dwelling accommodation. The daughter, however, has apparently developed glandular fever and has parted from her boyfriend and is now living in the main house.

Those particular personal circumstances, and the fact that Mr Richard earns only a modest sum as a gardener, have coloured our view of the whole matter. We have been told of the family’s income and expenditure and the savings that they have available to them. We have had no affidavit of means supplied by Advocate Roscouet, that certainly would have been helpful to us, but we will take Miss Roscouet at her word.

In our view it is not the purpose of the law to punish with a financial penalty those who cannot afford to pay. The fines in principle are absolutely correct but because of the personal circumstances we will reduce them only for the reasons that have been explained to us.

Mr. Richard, we are going to fine you on count 1: £375 or 3 weeks imprisonment in default of payment; count 2: £500 or 4 weeks imprisonment in default of payment; count 3: £375 or 3 weeks imprisonment in default of payment. Those sentences to be consecutive and we are going to levy costs of £500 with time to pay. (We will take a cheque of £1,000 and that will take two weeks to clear. The balance is to be paid by the end of October, and if your client has difficulty in that, of course, he will have to go to the Viscount and explain and maybe obtain an extension.)

No Authorities