Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/161

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

30^th August 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Architectural Planning and Building Services, Limited and

Anthony William Michael Hoban.

 

Architectural Planning and Building Services, Limited.

2 counts of:

contravening Article 14(1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 by failing to comply with a Housing Committee condition attaching to a nine year lease of a property in St. Helier, stipulating that the accommodation shall not, without the Committee's consent, be let to any persons other than those specified in Regulation (1)(1)(a)-(h) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1970 (Counts 1 & 2 of First Billet).

           

Plea:    Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

Anthony Hoban was owner and director of Architectural Planning and Building Services Limited, which owned a lease of 15 David Place, St Helier.  Two of the residential flats at the said property were subsequently let to unqualified couples - one flat for the period of a year at £140.00 per week and the other for four months at £150.00 per week.  As the offences committed by the company had occurred with Hoban's consent, Hoban himself was charged under Article 14(1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, as amended. 

 

Details of Mitigation:

There was no malice in the breach, or attempt to obtain illicit profit.  There had been co-operation with the Housing Department and remorse.  Both were first offenders for the purposes of sentencing.  Hoban was the sole person behind the Company and therefore there was an element of "double jeopardy".

 

 

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£1,500 fine.
Count 2:	£1,000 fine.

TOTAL: £2,500 fine; £1,000 costs to be paid jointly and severally.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

The Court had considered whether an element of double jeopardy existed, standing back from the matter and looking at the question of totality.  It was, however, satisfied that Hoban had "gone in with his eyes open" and that the fines moved for by the Crown were reasonable.  The purpose of the Housing Law is to retain units of accommodation for those with housing qualifications, and infractions must be punished.

 

Anthony William Michael Hoban.

2 counts of:

contravening Article 14(1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 by failing to comply with a Housing Committee condition attaching to a nine year lease of a property in St. Helier, stipulating that the accommodation shall not, without the Committee's consent, be let to any persons other than those specified in Regulation (1)(1)(a)-(h) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1970 (Counts 1 & 2 of second Billet).

 

Age:     36

 

Plea:    Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

See above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See above.

 

Previous Convictions:

Two, unrelated.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£1,500 fine or 2 months' imprisonment in default of payment.
Count 2:	£1,000 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.

TOTAL: £2,500 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default of payment; £1,000 costs to be paid jointly and severally.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

The Court had considered whether an element of double jeopardy existed, standing back from the matter and looking at the question of totality.  It was, however, satisfied that Hoban had "gone in with his eyes open" and that the fines moved for by the Crown were reasonable.  The purpose of the Housing Law is to retain units of accommodation for those with housing qualifications, and infractions must be punished.

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. Clarke for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Mr. Hoban, the Court has given careful consideration to everything that has been said, and very eloquently, by your counsel on your behalf and in particular the Court has given consideration to the question of whether there is an element of double jeopardy in the conclusions, in the sense that we accept that the company is your alter ego and that you will ultimately pay the fines moved for in respect of the company. 

2.        We have as a result stood back from the matter and tried to look at the question in the sense of the totality of the fines moved for.  Having done that we are, in fact, satisfied that the fines moved for are reasonable.  You went into this with your eyes open.  The purpose of the Housing Law is to preserve certain parts of the housing stock for people who are thought to have the greatest claim, that is to say people with residential qualifications and we must accordingly punish infractions of the Housing Law which are committed quite deliberately and in the knowledge that the law was being broken.

3.        We accept all the points made by your counsel in mitigation on your behalf, but the conclusions are granted and the defendant company is accordingly fined £1,500 on charge 1 and £1,000 on charge 2.  And you are fined £1,500, or in default of payment 2 months' imprisonment on charge 1; and £1,000 or 1 month, consecutive on charge 2, making a total of £2,500 or 3 months' imprisonment in default and we order that the costs of the prosecution, not exceeding £1,000 will be paid by the company and by you, jointly and severally.  We will give the defendant 1 month to pay the fines.

Authorities

AG -v- Muren and Peters (16^th August 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/166]