Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/154

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

28^th July, 2000

 

Before:    M.C. St. J Birt, Esq.,  Deputy Bailiff and

                                                      Jurats Myles,  and Bullen.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

San Michele Guest House, Ltd:

George Henry Davies.

 

SAN MICHELE GUEST HOUSE, LIMITED.

 

2 Counts of:   contravening Article 14(1)(a) Of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, by failing to comply with Housing Committee conditions

                    attaching  to a Housing Committee consent to the purchase of premises, which stipulated (a) that private accommodation at            

                    the premises should only be occupied by persons either approved by the Committee or by those exempt from obtaining such approval and (b) that any further units of private accommodation should be let to/occupied by only those persons specified in Regulations 1(1)(a) - (h) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1970   (counts 1 and 2).

 

Plea:   Facts admitted

 

Details of Offence:

 

Davies purchased San Michele Guest House Limited in September, 1997, the company being the owner of premises at 14 Windsor Road, St Helier.  The ground floor of the property comprised what was originally a three bedroom flat but which appeared to have been altered to form a 1 bedroom flat with two bedsitters.  A visit from an officer of the Housing Department revealed that the one bedroom flat was leased to a Miss Nobrega, and the separate bedsitters, described as flats 1a and 1b were let to two persons who were not residentially qualified.  Davies claimed that the individuals were the lodgers of Miss Nobrega, but, whilst she collected their rent on his behalf she played no part in finding new "lodgers" when vacancies arose and provided no services for them.  The "Illicit profit" during the relevant period was calculated by taking the fair rental figure set by the Housing Department in respect of the rent rebate scheme for a three bedroom flat and deducting this from the rents actually received by the company.    This produced an illicit profit over the period covered by the counts of £2,332.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Davies claimed that he simply inherited a situation which had been commenced by the previous owner of the company.  However, he accepted that he knew that what he was doing was not lawful, had accepted his guilt and had already suffered financially in that he had to reconvert the premises to a three bedroom flat, incurring expense and losing income whilst work was being carried out.  He had already lost profit of £5,00.  There had been considerable delay in bringing the matter to trial given that Davies was cautioned on 19^th August, 1999, warned on 24^th August that he would be reported but the summons was not issued until June, 2000.  Had unblemished record and referees spoke extremely highly of him.

 

Previous Convictions:    None.

 

Conclusions:               Count 1:                                        £2,500 fine

                      Count 2:   £750 fine

                                                                                                   

Sentence & Observations of Court: Count 1:  £1,750 fine

                                                              Count 2:  £750 fine.

                                                              The Court took the view that the likely market rental of the property was greater than the fair rental fixed by the Housing Department and, accordingly, the amount of illicit profit was likely to be less than that calculated by Housing

 

GEORGE HENRY DAVIES.

 

2 Counts of   contravening Article 14(1) (a) of the Housing  (Jersey) Law 1949, by failing to comply with Housing committee conditions attaching to a Housing committee consent to the purchase of premises, which stipulated  (a) that private accommodation at the premises should only be occupied by persons either approved by the Committee or by those exempt from obtaining such approval; and (b) that any further units of private accommodation should be let to/occupied by only those person specified in Regulations 1 (1) (a) - (h) of the Housing  (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1970.  (counts 1 and 2)

 

Plea:   Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

 

See above.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

See above.

 

Previous Convictions:    None.

 

Conclusions:                     Count 1:  £4,000 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment

                      Count 2:  £1,000 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.

                      Costs: £1,250.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 1: £2,000 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment

                                                              Count 2: £1,000 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.

                                                              The Court took the view that the likely market rental of the property was greater than the fair rental fixed by the Housing Department and, accordingly, the amount of illicit profit was likely to be less than that calculated by Housing

                                                                                                   

 

 

 

                                          A.R. Binnington,. Esq., Crown Advocate

                          Advocate D.E. Le Cornu for San Michele Guest House Ltd,

                                                             and G. H. Davies.

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.    So far as the Housing Committee was concerned, the ground floor of San Michele Guest House contained one flat with three bedrooms.  In June, 1998,  an exempted transaction form was put in by the defendant to the Housing Committee, which named a Miss Nobrega as the tenant for the whole flat.  In fact the flat had been sub-divided into three units, two of which were occupied by non-residentially qualified persons. 

 

2.    The Crown has said that there was an illicit profit, in this case of some £2,332, and that this was a deliberate breach of the Housing Law for financial gain. The Crown has reminded the Court - and the Court fully accepts it - that the purpose of the Housing Law is to ensure that accommodation is available for those who are residentially qualified.

 

3.    Mr Le Cornu, in a powerful submission, has put forward a number of matters in mitigation. First he points out that the defendant company acquired the property when it was already in its current state.  In other words, the ground floor flat had already been converted into the three units, and was already occupied by two non-residentially qualified persons. What Mr Davies and the defendant company did was simply to continue the position.   However, he accepts that Mr Davies did put in the exempt transaction form which clearly, to his knowledge, did not reflect the true position on the ground.

 

4.    Secondly he has pointed to Mr Davies's exemplary character. We have had a number of references which we have read carefully, and they all speak extremely highly of Mr Davies. The Court has no doubt that he is dismayed by what has happened.

 

5.    Thirdly, he was immediately co-operative; he got rid of the non-qualified occupants; and put the flat back into the condition in which it should have been.   In that respect, says Mr Le Cornu, the company and Mr Davies have already suffered financial cost to the extent of some £5,000 or thereabouts in terms of direct costs, and lost rental.  Fourthly, Mr Le Cornu queries the figure for illicit rental put forward by the Crown. He points out that the rental of the flat as reconstituted and let to a local resident, is only some £9.00 per week,  lower than the aggregate that was being received for the three properties.   He accepts that that cannot be extrapolated back to 1997, but says that it suggests that the illicit profit figure was clearly much less than the Crown suggests.

 

6.    The Crown took the fair rental figure for housing rebate purposes and the Court is of the view that it is likely that the market rental of the flat in its proper condition was higher than the fair rental, so that the illicit profit was less than put forward by the Crown, although it is not possible to say with any certainty what level it was.

 

7.    Finally - and for the Court most significantly - Mr Le Cornu has referred to the delay in this matter. The defendant was interviewed in August, 1999, and told that he would be reported, but a summons on what appears to be a straightforward matter was not issued until June, 2000.  The delay and the worry during that time clearly affected the defendant, and we have seen a medical report to the effect that he was medically affected by the stress and strain of this matter hanging over him for so long.

 

8.    Taking all these matters into account, we have concluded that we can reduce the conclusions of the Crown.  Stand up please,  Mr Davies.  On count 1: we fine you £1,750, on count 2: £750, that makes a total of  £2,500 against the company.   On count 1: the fine will be £2,000, on count 2: £1,000, making a total of £3,000 against Mr Davies.   There will be one month's imprisonment on each of those fines in default of payment to be served consecutively, in other words two months if the fines are not paid.   We make an order for costs in the sum of £1,250, and there will be 14  days to pay.  

9.    Authorities

 

A.G -v- O'Neill ( 3^rd April, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- O'Neill (14^th September, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Pirzada (20^th December, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Direct Furniture Supplies (7^th May, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Troalic (23^rd February, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

Troalic -v- A.G. (12^th June, 2000) Jersey Unreported CofA.

A.G -v- European Employment Agency & Gas Consult (20^th November, 1992)

Jersey Unreported.