Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/85

3 pages

 

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

19^th May, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats

Rumfitt and Bullen

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Barra Hotel, Ltd.

 

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction by the Court 'en police correctionnelle' on 17^th March, 2000, on:

 

3 counts of   contravening Article 5(3) of the Fire Precautions (Jersey) Law, 1977:

 

Count 1:   by failing to ensure that all emergency fire escape doors through which a person may have to pass shall not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened;

 

Count 2:   by failing to ensure that all means of escape in case of fire are kept free from combustible storage; and

 

Count 3:   by failing to ensure that all means of escape in case of fire are kept free from obstruction.

 

Plea:   Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offences:

 

Defendant company was occupier of Barra Hotel, Kensington Place, St. Helier, registered for approximately 185 guests.  Following trial before Inferior Number on 16^th and 17^th March, 2000, the defendant company was found guilty of breaches of conditions stipulated in the fire certificate.  Charge 1 concerned the failure of the company to ensure that two fire exit doors were not locked or fastened so that they could not be easily and immediately opened by persons wishing to use the fire escape exit (the push bars of each of the two double fire exit doors at the rear of the hotel were secured with padlock and chain)[1].  Charge 2 related to the storage of combustible materials (mattresses, linen, furniture) in the fire escape route.  Charge 3 related to the obstruction of the fire escape routes with 5 beer kegs, a mattress and a chair.  The prosecution viewed the chaining of the fire exit doors as the most serious of the offences.  Mr. Velosa said that the doors were secured in order to prevent drunks entering the hotel, that there had been problems with residents of the Shelter entering the hotel and that the fire exit doors were secured between 10.00 pm to 11.30 pm each evening during the four or five weeks prior to the date upon which the Fire Service received reports that the doors had been secured with chains.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

No previous convictions.  Doors not locked permanently 24 hours a day.  Company had employed a responsible manager whom the Fire Service had no concerns about.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions: Count 1:  £8,000 fine;

                        Count 2:  £1,000 fine;

                        Count 3:  £1,000 fine;

                                      £5,000 costs.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:   Conclusions granted.  Court stressed need to ensure safety of public and guests at hotel.

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Mr. B. Shelton, a Director, on behalf of

the Defendant Company.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

        

1.            The defendant company has been convicted of serious offences under the Fire Precautions (Jersey) Law, 1977 by failing to comply with conditions designed to ensure the safety of the public and in particular of residents of the Barra Hotel. The most serious offence related to two fire exit doors which  at the material time were secured by chains and padlocks.  The danger to public safety is plain and obvious.

 

2.            This is the first case to come before the Court and we think it right to state that serious breaches of the law such as this should attract substantial punishment.

 

3.            It is true that on the occasion which brought these offences to light there was no fire, but we do not regard that as mitigating the offences.  There is little to be said in mitigation except that the defendant company has not previously been convicted, nor come to the adverse notice of any statutory authority.  The defendant company through its director, Mr. Shelton, did not admit the infractions and signally failed to express any regret or remorse for the risks to which residents and others had been exposed.  Mr. Shelton drew the Court's attention to the financial circumstances of the defendant company and told us, in effect, that it was unable to pay any fine.

 

4.            The Court adjourned the sentencing of the company on 17^th April in order to allow Mr. Shelton to produce the accounts of the company and any further information necessary to establish its financial circumstances.  It is sufficient, we think, for us to state that we do not find the material placed before us satisfactorily establishes those circumstances.

 

5.            We conclude, therefore, that we ought to impose fines which reflect the gravity of the offences.  The importance of complying with statutory requirements designed to promote the health and safety of the public cannot be over-emphasised.  We have taken into account all the matters placed before us by Mr. Shelton on behalf of the company but we have concluded that the fines moved for by the Crown Advocate are right and proper.  We therefore grant the conclusions and on count 1, the defendant company is fined £8,000; on count 2, £1,000; on count 3, £1,000, making a total of £10,000 and we order the defendant company to pay the costs of the prosecution in the sum of £5,000.

 

 

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Jersey New Waterworks (28^th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

A.G. -v- Stansell QVC, Ltd. (15^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

R. -v- F. Howe & Sons (Engineers) Ltd. [1999] 2 All ER 249.

A.G. -v- Riviera Guest House, Ltd. (1^st November, 1991) Jersey Unreported.

Fire Precautions (Jersey) Law, 1977: Article 5(3).

Criminal Justice Act 1991: s. 18.

A.G. -v- New Lynn Apartments, Ltd. (12^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

4 Halsbury 12: pp.1298-1302: Criminal Justice Act, 1991.