Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/121

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

29^th June, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

Jurats Rumfitt and Tibbo

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Terence Stephen Talbot

 

1 count of:   causing/permitting development, namely the construction of a new double garage, without the permission of the Planning and Environment Committee, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964 (count 1):

 

1 count of:   making a material change in the use of an existing garage, by using it as habitable accommodation, without the permission of the Planning and Environment Committee, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964 (count 2);

 

1 count of:   permitting use of a motor vehicle on island roads, with defective brakes, contrary to Article 39(3)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 3);

 

1 count of:   permitting use of a motor vehicle on island roads with defective speedometer, contrary to Article 36(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order, 1998 (count 4);

 

1 count of:   permitting use of a motor vehicle on island roads, without displaying on a plate particulars required by Article 77(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)(Jersey) Order, 1998, contrary to Article 39(3)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 5).

 

Age:    52.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offences:

 

Count 1:   Talbot constructed a new double garage at his premises without consent of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Count 2:   Used the original garage as habitable accommodation without permission for change of use.  Offence occurred over seven or eight month period.

Count 3:   Permitted lorry to be driven on roads whilst the brakes were below the specified minimum braking efficiency of 50% in that Talbot's vehicle when tested on the brake force tester, was found to have a braking efficiency of 44.3%.  In addition there was an excessive imbalance between the nearside and offside front brakes, resulting in an obvious pull to the right.

Count 4:   Speedometer cable disconnected rendering the speedometer inoperative.

Count 5:   Failed to display a plate showing year of manufacture, weight, etc., of the vehicle.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Says he was unaware of requirements of Planning Law.  When confronted by Planning Officer asked what could be done to put matters right.  Retrospective application for construction of new garage likely to be approved by Committee.  New garage involved no risk to public health or safety.  The new garage replaced an existing car port so that in planning terms the effect was limited to building a new front wall with opening garage door.  In relation to material change of use, no profit was made.  Portuguese lady resided there for seven to eight month period whilst she was waiting to return to Madeira with her young child.  Done as a favour to assist lady in distress.  The shower has since been removed from the original garage.

Counts 3 & 4:   Defective brakes and speedometer.  Talbot had had the lorry serviced three weeks earlier; not driven the vehicle personally; was unaware that the speedometer had been disconnected and as soon as defects were brought to his attention he had the garage readjust the brakes.  The speedometer had been disconnected by the garage.

Count 5:   Talbot had a plate but for some reason it was not on the vehicle on date in question.

Two year period in which to pay the fine, unnecessarily long in view of the nature of the offence and the offender.  Although affidavit of means indicates that Talbot would be able to pay £50 a week, this depends on the income that he receives as independent road haulier.  Charges under the Public Health (Control of Buildings)(Jersey) Law, 1956 were not pursued in the Royal Court.  The matter has already been before the Magistrate's Court when the Magistrate declined jurisdiction and Talbot has therefore had to appear before two Courts.  The matter has been hanging over him for a considerable time and wishes to deal with the matter as quickly as possible.  Has three children, supports one at university, another two in full-time education at Highlands.

 

Previous Convictions:          Using motor vehicle with defective trailer 12.2.79 - fined £10.

                                    Overloading vehicle 14.4.86 - fined £25.

                                    Carrying a dangerous load 16.3.99 - fined £100.

 

Conclusions: count 1:   £1,000 fine or 5 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment;

count 2:   £1,000 fine or 5 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive;

count 3:   £1,000 fine or 5 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive;

count 4:   £500 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive;

count 5:   £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.

TOTAL:  £3,600 fine or 18 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment; £500 costs.

 

Sentence & Observations

of the Court:

                        count 1:   £500 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment;

count 2:   £1,000 fine or 5 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive;

count 3:   £350 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive;

count 4:   £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive;

count 5:   £50 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.

TOTAL:  £2,000 or 11 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment; no costs order.

 

Granted time to pay fine £40 per week commencing 30^th June, 2000.  Court felt that the matter ought to have been dealt with at Magistrate's Court level, hence reason why no order made as to costs.

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate G.S. Robinson for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            Mr. Talbot, stand up, please.  The Court, I am sure you will understand, must enforce administrative requirements and we believe that some of these administrative failures on your part should not have taken place because, with your experience, you ought to have known what your obligations were under the Island Planning Law.

 

2.            Having said that we have noted that the Planning Committee is in fact likely to give permission for that which you did without permission and this is not, therefore, at the higher end of the scale of seriousness.  Therefore we are going to modify the conclusions moved for by the Crown Advocate.  On count 1, you are fined £500, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment; on count 2, you are fined £1,000, or 5 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment; on count 3, you are fined £350, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment; on count 4, you are fined £100, or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment; on count 5, you are fined £50, or 1 week's imprisonment, making a total of £2,000, or 11 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment.

 

3.            We take the view that, if the Crown was prepared to move for fines within the jurisdiction of this Court, or outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court, proceedings ought not to have begun in the Magistrate's Court at all and we therefore will make no order for costs.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Coutanche (15^th July, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Hall (18^th September, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Richard (27^th August, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Channel Islands Carriage Co. Ltd. (31^st January, 1997) Jersey

      Unreported.