Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC057

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

21^st March 2003

The Attorney General

-v-

Vanni (C.I.) Limited

Plea:    Facts admitted.

Details of Offence:

Failure to comply with planning enforcement notice [Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964, Article 8(1)].  The company had used agricultural land for storage of contractor's equipment for many years.  Since 1995 the P&E Committee had made intermittent efforts to put an end to the use.  In April, 2002, an Administrative Review Board held that forcing the company to vacate immediately would be unjust.  The Committee served notices requiring compliance in six months time.  The company did not comply.  The Committee attempted to assist in finding alternative premises.

Details of Mitigation:

The company worked for inter alia the JEC and thus provided a public service.  It had made efforts to find alternative premises.  The site was screened from the road by trees.  The Administrative Review Board had found in the company's favour.  Alternative premises would be more expensive and the cost passed on to the consumer.

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

Conclusions:

£1,500 fine; £1,000 costs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

£750 fine; £750 maximum costs.

Solicitor General.

Advocate M.L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Defendant Company has admitted an infraction of Article 8(3) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964, by failing to comply with notices issued by the Planning and Environment Committee requiring the discontinuance of an unauthorised use of land. 

2.        This is a saga with a long history going back at least 7 years, when the Defendant Company was requested by the Committee to cease this unauthorised use.  On the other hand, it is conceded by the Solicitor General that the Defendant Company might have been lulled into a sense of false security by reason of the length of time involved and in particular by a favourable response from a Board of Administrative Review, which considered a complaint by the Defendant Company in 2002.

3.        The Defendant Company has, however, now put matters right and has vacated the land in compliance with the notice and has, furthermore, admitted the infraction.  The maximum penalty for an infraction under this paragraph of Article 8 is, we are told, £2,000.  We feel able having regard to the mitigating factors outlined by Counsel for the Defendant Company, which include the difficulties, of which we take judicial notice, for companies conducting this kind of business to find suitable premises.

4.        We feel able to reduce the conclusions moved for by the Solicitor General.  The Defendant Company will accordingly be fined the sum of £750 and will be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution not exceeding £750.  The defendant Company has one week to pay.

Authorities

Ayling [1996] 2 Cr. App. R(s) 266.