Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC055

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

4^th April 2008

The Attorney General

-v-

Justin Ashley Wallbridge-Smith

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to:

Age:  37.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant was the joint owner of a large house comprising four bedroom suites.  It came to the attention of the Housing Department that the house was being occupied by unqualified lodgers without the presence of any residentially qualified occupant in charge, and this in breach of the conditions set down in the consent given at the time of the sale.

The Housing Department conducted interviews with the lodgers and it became apparent that neither the defendant, nor any of the co-owners had lived in the house since they purchased it.  Unqualified lodgers had been allowed to occupy the house during this period of 16 months.  At the time the inquiries were carried out the defendant was living at another address.  On the basis of their findings, the Housing Department advised the defendant that he would either have to move all the lodgers out of the property or he would have to move in himself.  The defendant agreed to the latter and he and his wife moved in 3 days after receiving the warning.  Nevertheless, the defendant still asked one lodger to tell Housing that he had been living there on and off over the proceeding period.

Throughout the period that the Defendant was in breach of the Housing Regulations he collected rent from his lodgers, or had the rent collected by one of the lodgers on his behalf.  In total the defendant received £13,600 from unqualified lodgers during their period of illegal occupation.

Count 1:         £160 x 48          =          £7,680.

Count 2:         £160 x  7 weeks £1,120.

Count 3:         £150 x 32 weeks            £4,800.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, remorse, previous good character, delay.

Previous Convictions:

Four previous convictions, all unrelated.

Conclusions:

Total: £15,000 fine or 6 months' imprisonment in default of payment.

Costs: £1,5000.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: £7,500 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default.

Costs: £1,500.

Payment to be made at no less than £500 per month.

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

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The Crown Advocate has outlined the facts in very great detail and there is no need to repeat them.  Suffice it to say that when Mr Wallbridge-Smith and other members of his family bought Laurel House, La Rue Du Crocquet, St Brelade.  The Housing consent issued on 18^th August, 2005, was very clear.  The use of the property was in these terms:-

"That it should be occupied by the purchaser as their sole or principal place of residence or shall be let unfurnished to, or be otherwise occupied by, person approved by the Committee as being persons of a category specified in Regulation 1 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) or (j) of The Housing (General Provisions)(Jersey) Regulations 1970 as amended, or by persons who have submitted a Particulars of Exempted Transaction form in accordance with Regulation 5 (1) of the above Regulations, and who will occupy the accommodation as their sole or principal place of residence".

Of course, you can have up to five lodgers as long as the residentially qualified person is living in the property.

2.        It was in September 2006 that the Housing Department received anonymous information that the property was being run as an illegal lodging house.  It took some months of investigation to unravel the truth of the matter.  Mr Wallbright-Smith continued to deny the offences until 7^th March, 2008, when he eventually admitted that he was at fault.

3.        Advocate Preston has quite properly presented a different picture to that implied by the Crown.  We now have a letter from Mr Wallbridge-Smith which shows the vast amount he has expended on this clearly deteriorating property; and there are personal matters which have been shown to us in the letter which we will not go into here.

4.        This was originally a deliberate flaunting of the law and this was quite wrong, particularly in the light of the Island's housing problem.  We note that in the case of AG v Chapman [2008] JRC 037, the accused there was given the opportunity to rectify matters which he agreed to do, but did not implement. 

5.        In the present case the whole of the text message read to us by Advocate Preston is not as startling as the version given to us by the Crown.  Nevertheless there is an undeniable impression of a determination to mislead. 

6.        We note that the investigation and particularly the time factor is for the whole period of the infraction.  This was a breach of the housing law which the Court will not tolerate.  We have looked at the matter in the round and particularly at the financial and personal situations of the accused.

7.        We are going to reduce the fines on Count 1 to £2,500 or 1 month's imprisonment in default.  On Count 2 to £2,500 or 1 month's imprisonment in default, consecutive.  On Count 3 to £2,500 or 1 month's imprisonment in default, consecutive.  That is a total of £7,500. 

8.        Advocate Preston has asked us and we have agreed that payment shall be made at no less than £500 per month and there must of course be a contribution to the Crown's costs of £1,500.

Authorities

AG -v- Chapman [2008] JRC 037.