Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Coxon [2003] JRC 137 (25 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2003/2003_137.html
Cite as: [2003] JRC 137

[New search] [Help]

[2003]JRC137

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th July 2003

Before:

P.R. Le Cras, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq and Tibbo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Stephen James Coxon

1 count of:	Contravening Article 2(1)(a) of the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law, 1973, by starting a new undertaking without a licence to do so. (Count 1)
1 count of:	Contravening Article 2A of the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law, 1973, by failing to return a duly completed manpower survey form within the prescribed period . (Count 2).

Plea: Facts admitted

Details of Offence:

Charge 1 Defendant had been operating as a self-employed landscape gardener since 1978. Under the Regulation of Undertakings and Development (Jersey) Law, 1973, as it was then, he was not required to apply for a licence from Regulation of Undertakings as he was operating on his own account, from home, with no employees. Once he started to take on staff he was required to apply for a licence for each of them on a contract by contract basis. This he did. However, it subsequently became apparent that he was also contracting staff out to the building trade without having applied for a licence to do so.

Charge 2 Failure to file the manpower return which was sent to him in August 2002.

Previous Convictions:

A number of miscellaneous motoring offences. Other than those, he has on two occasions (once in 1986 and the other in 1996) being convicted of failing to deliver his social security contribution schedule within the specified time and of failing to pay his social security contributions within the specified time.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£2,500 fine or 6 months' imprisonment, in default of payment.
Count 2:	£100 fine or 30 days imprisonment, in default of payment.

£750 Costs

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

There is a line between what Mr Coxon was permitted to do and what he was not permitted to do. He knew he had crossed that line. Although not serious, Court has no hesitation in granting conclusions.

A.J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D.J. Benest for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1. There is a line between what Mr Coxon was permitted to do, and that which he was not permitted to do and he must have known that he had crossed it. Having done so, he continued and must have profited. Although this is not the most serious of offences his conduct as a whole must be taken into account and the Court has no hesitation in upholding the conclusions of the learned Attorney General. As far as the costs are concerned they will be limited to £750.

Authorities

AG -v - Sunrise Resources Limited (11^th July, 2003) Jersey Unreported; [2003/120].