Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/19

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1^st February, 2000

 

Before:    F.C. Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

                                                      Jurats, Querée, Bullen.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Carla Cristina Brito

 

 

1 infraction of   Article 2(1)(b) of the Lodging Houses (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1962, as amended,

  by keeping an unregistered lodging house.

 

 

 

Age:  23

 

 

Plea:   Facts admitted.

 

 

Details of Offence:

 

Defendant was fully residentially qualified.  She took on lease of accommodation from outgoing qualified tenant.  There were five lodgers at the property.   On 6^th April, 1996, one of the lodgers gave birth to a child.  A further child was born to another lodger six months' later.  The defendant's boyfriend shared her room from time to time.  Following a visit from the Housing Department defendant warned that she may be in breach of the Lodging Houses Law and she became visibly distressed.    Defendant attended the Department  by appointment and made a statement.  She said she paid the landlord an initial rent of £1,083.33 per month which was increased to £1,245.83 per month in September, 1998.  Income rental from lodgers was £1,516.66 per month, leaving a balance of £271.66 per month once the landlord was paid.  Balance paid the cost of electricity,  water, and occupiers rates, and cleaning materials for the communal bathroom and kitchen.  In colder months, defendant and another lodger effectively subsidised other lodgers by paying extra electricity costs.  At interview defendant said she did not know the Law and in particular did not know that children counted as lodgers.

 

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Youth - aged 23.  Ignorant of Law, which appeared genuine.  Had always dealt fairly with all the lodgers and made no profit.  Not cynical breach of the Law.  Very modest means .  Affidavit of means handed up to Court.

 

 

Previous Convictions:        1 minor motoring offence.

 

 

Conclusions:               1 year binding over order.

 

 

Sentence & Observations of Court:     Absolute discharge.  Court commented it had concerns as to why it had been felt necessary to bring the prosecution in the first place.

 

 

 

                                                 Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate

                                         Advocate L. J. Kerruish for the Accused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:     We must immediately say that we have concern as to why it was necessary to bring this prosecution at all.    It seems to us to be an infraction committed more in the breach than the observance.

 

Mrs Sharpe has clearly outlined the facts to us in some detail, and it is important to note that Miss Brito is only 23 and did not know at any time that she could only take 5 paying guests, or that children counted as lodgers.   The birth of two children to her lodgers has in fact toppled the balance and brought this matter to Court.

 

It is quite clear to us that Miss Brito has in no way acted unfairly to her lodgers, she has certainly not benefited in any material way from the situation.   Her financial situation may be described as parlous; she has dealt more than fairly with all the lodgers throughout, and the carefully prepared Affidavit of Means filed by Advocate Keruish bears that out.

 

At the time Miss Brito filed her exemption transaction form, she had taken over the lease and the existing 5 lodgers.  The form merely states this at its foot:

 

"n.b.  Failure to complete this form in full could result in your occupation of the accommodation not complying with the Housing General Provisions (Jersey) Regulations 1970, as amended, for which there are severe financial penalties".

 

We would merely suggest, if it is helpful, that if the Housing Department has sufficient funding available, if might be appropriate to amend its form in order to include some mention of the provisions of the law under which this prosecution has been brought.

 

Looking at the facts of the case, it is quite clear that the law has not been cynically broken, but as Crown Advocate Sharpe has remarked, and it is a fair remark, breach of the law is serious, and that is recognised in particular cases by the unlimited fine that may be imposed.   But in this particular case though the wrong has been made, we are certain in our own minds that Miss Brito did not intend to break the law, and we will depart if we may from the Crown Advocates' conclusions.   We are going to give your client an absolute discharge.     

 

 

Authorities

 

A.G -v- de Carteret (20^th January, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Allan ( 5^th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Evans (3^rd November, 1995) Jersey Unreported.                                                    

A.G -v- MacKenzie  (19^th November, 1990) Jersey Unreported.