Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/225A

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

9^th November 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Philip Francis Ozouf.

 

 

1 count of:

contravening Article 17(1) of the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law, 2000 by introducing parlour and yard washings into a surface water sewer, the contents of which ran into a stream resulting in harm to the aquatic ecosystem.

 

Age:     73.

 

Plea:    Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

Parlour and yard washing (including diluted slurry) were spread on a field.  The liquid overflowed onto the road, down a surface water sewer and into a brook.  According to scientific analysis, the pollution caused damage to the aquatic ecosystem of the brook.  A similar pollution incident had occurred in December, 1999.  No prosecution resulted but the defendant was warned, told to ensure that this type of incident did not happen again, and was provided with advice on how to prevent pollution.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The pollution was accidental.  The new law and the offence should be seen in the context of farming life.  The defendant was perturbed that his husbandry was being called into question.  The defendant had taken note of events.  A natural matter such as diluted slurry should be distinguished from other pollutants such as pesticides.  The farmland in question slopes downwards, therefore there is a natural risk of runoff, especially as a result of heavy rain.  No pollution had been caused to any domestic water supply.  The brook is not a natural, pure, water supply, but one that is susceptible to other pollutants such as traffic.  The defendant had been embarrassed by procedural difficulties (i.e. how to charge a Constable for an offence committed in the Parish where he holds office) that had resulted in the prosecution being brought in the Royal Court.

 

Previous Convictions:

29^th March, 2001: 2 counts of causing unnecessary suffering to a cow, contrary to Article 2(1)(B) of the Protection of Animals (Jersey) Law, 1980.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

£500 fine; no order for costs.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

£200 fine or one month's imprisonment in default of payment.

 

The Court was not persuaded that the prosecution should have been brought in the Royal Court as a matter of necessity.  The Court would not make a ruling because it had not heard legal argument, and also because the Solicitor General and counsel concur that it was correct to bring the prosecution in the Royal Court.  Constables and Centeniers hold independent offices.  Generally speaking Centeniers are subordinate, but if a Constable dies in office, prosecutions are brought in the name of a Centenier.  If a Constable commits a minor offence it seems to the Court, in principle, that a Centenier could bring proceedings in the Magistrate's Court.  It is unfortunate that this defendant was arraigned in the Royal Court because he is a Constable.  Pollution a serious matter.  The Water Pollution Law has brought about a change to the legal landscape.  It must be assumed that the legislature has balanced the interests of the farming community and wider community.  Greater care will have to be taken by the defendant in future to avoid conflict with the Law.  This incident was the result of an unfortunate accident when a nozzle in a liquid sprayer jammed.  As this was the first prosecution brought in the Royal Court, greater allowance would be made for mitigating factors.

 

 

The Solicitor General.

Advocate R. A. Falle for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        We wish, first of all, to say that we are not persuaded that this prosecution should have been brought in this Court as a matter of necessity.  We are not going to make a ruling in that respect because we have not heard detailed argument and because both the Solicitor General and  senior counsel appearing for the defence concur that the Magistrate's Court did not have jurisdiction.

2.        The position, however, seems to us, in principle, to be that the Connétable and his Centeniers hold independent offices under the Crown.  Generally speaking, of course, the Centeniers are subordinate to the Connétable.  But if a Connétable dies in office the process of criminal justice in the parish does not come to a halt and prosecutions are then brought by, and in the name of, the senior Centenier.  If a  person holding the office of Connétable commits a minor offence and it is clearly impossible for the Connétable to prosecute himself it seems to the Court, in principle, that there is no reason why the senior Centenier of the parish should not bring the prosecution in his own name.  We say this at such length because we think it is unfortunate that this Defendant should have been arraigned before this Court for a comparatively minor offence, merely because he holds the office of Connétable.

3.        Having said that, we agree with the Solicitor General that the pollution of water supplies is a serious matter.  The Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 has undoubtedly brought about a substantial change to the legal landscape and to the duties of landowners to prevent the pollution of water supplies.  We must assume that the legislature has balanced the needs and requirements of the farming community with the desirability of protecting the interests of the wider community in an increasingly crowded island.  That being so, the duty of farmers and agriculturalists to have regard to the wider interests of the community and to adapt their working practices must be enforced.  Greater care will have to be taken in future to avoid coming into conflict with the provisions of the Water Pollution Law. 

4.        We accept that this infraction came about as the result of an unfortunate accident, when a spray nozzle jammed causing the mixture of slurry and water, which was being distributed, to pond and to flow off the land and into a stream.  We take account of the fact that this appears to be the first prosecution under the Water Pollution Law and we think that we can make, perhaps, a greater allowance for the mitigating factors than was made in the conclusions.  Mr. Ozouf, the sentence of the Court is that you will be fined £200, or in default of payment, one month's imprisonment.        

 

 

 

Authorities

Milford Haven Port Authority [2001] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 423.