Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC095

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th May 2010

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats de Veulle and Le Cornu.

The Attorney General

-v-

Royal Yacht Limited

Alcino Vieira

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Royal Yacht Limited

First Indictment

1 count of:	Failure to comply with the terms of License, contrary to Article 79 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 (Count 2).
2 counts of:	Providing entertainment, contrary to Article 2(a) of the Unlawful Public Entertainments (Jersey) Regulations 2007 (Counts 3 and 4).

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The Royal Yacht Limited ("the Royal Yacht") and Alcino Vieira have pleaded guilty to permitting people to drink alcohol in the Drift Bar on 11^th April, 2009, contrary to the terms of their licence, and two counts providing entertainment on 10^th April, 2009, contrary to the terms of the Bailiff's permission.  The Licensee has also pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to get the Constables' approval for the person deputising for him during his absence from the Island. 

The Royal Yacht is the holder of the 4^th Category (comprehensive) and 7^th Category (entertainment) licenses.  The 4^th Category Licence covers the whole of the Royal Yacht premises, the 7^th Category Licence relates only to the area within the hotel known as the Drift Bar.  Under Article 51 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 ("the Law") the 4^th Category Licence permits the premises to open from 09.00 to 01.00 on weekdays, and from 11.00 to 01.00 on Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas Day.  This bar also has a P49 entertainment permit, allowing "music, live acts and dancing" from Monday to Sunday, with the exception of Good Friday and Christmas Day. 

On Maundy Thursday 9^th April, 2009, the Drift Bar was opened as is permitted under the 7^th Category Licence, and a DJ played from about 19.45.  However, having taken legal advice, the decision had been made that the bar remain open after midnight, thereby providing entertainment on Good Friday 10^th April, 2009, until approximately 01.00, in breach of the Bailiff's permission (Count 3).  The hotel then opened on Good Friday as it is permitted to do in accordance with its 4^th Category Licence, which covers the Royal Yacht premises.  The Drift was visited by police officers after midnight on Good Friday (i.e. in the early hours of Saturday) and the premises was found to be busy with a DJ performing.  The Licensee confirmed that the DJ had started playing at about 22.00 (Count 4). 

The Drift Bar remained open until 02.00 on Saturday 11trh April, 2009.  It was suggested that the Drift Bar was operating under the general 4th Category Licence until 01.00 as is permitted under Article 51 of the Law, and then under the 7th Category Licence until 02.00.  Given the specific restrictions on The Drift opening on Good Friday, it is held that it is not permitted to open under the 4th Category Licence until 01.00 (its statutory limit) on the Saturday morning and then rely on its 7th Category Licence for a further hour until 02.00 (Count 2). 

It is accepted that both defendants believed that they were acting within the Law, despite having been advised by the Licensing Unit that this was not the case.  The Crown accepted that the interpretation issued by the Licensing Unit in March 2009 had changed.  However, certain other premises had abided by that advice, and not surprisingly were angry when it was later established that the Royal Yacht Hotel had stayed open. 

In determining conclusions the Crown considered the net profit made during the specific times that the bar was open, namely Count 2:- £2,413.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, steps taken to avoid any repetition, delay in the matter coming to Court, both company and licensee had long and unblemished records. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 2:	£1,800 fine.
Count 3:	£7,500 fine.
Count 4:	£5,000 fine.

Total:  £14,300 fine and time to pay.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Conclusions granted with 1 week in which to pay fine.

Alcino Vieira

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Failure to provide notice of absence from the Island, contrary to Article 19(1)(a) of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 (Count 5).

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Royal Yacht Limited above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Royal Yacht Limited above.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Second Indictment

Count 5:

£100 fine.

Total:  £100 fine and time to pay.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Second Indictment

Conclusions granted. 

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. K. A. Richardson for Royal Yacht Ltd and Vieira.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        These were, in the view of the Court, clear breaches of the law by a company which has been in business for a very long time and which should, indeed, be regarded as one of the leading members of the trade.  One is entitled to expect, in the view of the Court, that a company with such a reputation would make every effort to ensure that it did not break the law.  If the letter from the licensing unit was ambiguous in the sense that it did not refer to premises with more than one licence, the defendant company did not seek to resolve that ambiguity with the licensing unit as the letter invited them to do.  Instead they took a chance and they ignored the warning in the letter and the clear terms of the Bailiff's permit.  A significant fine must clearly be imposed. 

2.        We accept that the defendant company took legal advice although that is not of course an excuse for breaking the law.  However, the defendant company has conducted its business lawfully over a lengthy period and that is an important matter in mitigation.  We also take account of the regret expressed by counsel on the defendant company's behalf and all the other submissions of counsel who said everything that it was possible to say. 

3.        So far as the defendant company is concerned we grant the conclusions and we impose a fine on Count 2 of £1,800, on Count 3; £7,500, and on Count 4; £5,000, making a total of £14,300 and we give the company 1 week to pay those fines. 

4.        So far as Mr Vieira is concerned, we accept the explanation offered by counsel for the minor breach of the law involved and we impose on Count 5 a fine of £100. 

Authorities

Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.