Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/118

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11^th June 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Anthony George Benest.

[On 19^th October, 2001, the Defendant denied the facts of this and two other counts, counts 1 and 3; a trial was ordered, which started on 22^nd January 2002, when the defendant admitted the facts of count 2, and the Crown then accepted his denial of the facts on counts 1 and 3, which were therefore dismissed.]

On 15^th March 2002, at the sentence hearing, a dispute on the facts of the contravention arose and a 'Newton' hearing was ordered.

Newton Hearing

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.P. Michel for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The finding of the Jurats is as follows:

(i)        The Court is sure that Mr Stein did not during the course of a telephone conversation, after the initial meeting on site in the summer of 2000, state to Mr. Benest words to the effect that a permit was not required as the works would be within the curtilage of the property. 

(ii)       The Court is sure that the question of horse trails was mentioned at the site meeting in Field 1451 in the summer of 2000. 

(iii)      The Court is, however, not satisfied, to the criminal standard of proof, that Mr. Benest positively stated at that meeting that the horses would form the trails themselves.  But the Court is satisfied that Mr. Stein, for whatever reason, drew that inference and that that was the reason why he said at that meeting that no application for development permission was necessary. 

(iv)      At no stage did Mr. Benest make clear to Mr. Stein the nature and scale of the development, including the fact that it would require mechanical diggers, but nor did Mr. Stein ask the appropriate questions to establish the nature and scale of the activities. 

Authorities

Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964.