Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC098

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

28^th May 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Francis John Venton

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

Age:  56.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Mr Venton was the joint owner (with his wife) of a property known as Papillon in St. Brelade.  Over time, the garage at the property was developed into a separate housing unit (the "Annexe").  Mr and Mrs Venton occupied the Annexe and rented out the main house to an unqualified couple for a period of 21 months at a total rent of £43,000.  For the first 10 months, a ground floor flat in the main house was occupied by Mr Venton's son on an informal basis.  The son had housing qualifications.  On the instruction of Mr Venton, the son entered a purported licence with the unqualified couple.  In reality, the living arrangements were more akin to a lessor-lessee relationship.  The son had no locus to grant a licence or a lease to the unqualified couple as he had no rights of occupation over the entirety of the main house. 

The involvement of his son and the utilisation of the purported licence to obfuscate matters were aggravating factors.  So too, were the apparent lack of remorse, non-co-operation with the investigating officers and late guilty plea.  It was a deliberate flouting of the law over a 21 month period, albeit that Mr Venton did not make an illicit profit as he did not charge more in rental than he would have charged a tenant with the relevant qualifications.  The suggestion that Mr Venton truly believed that there was no need for a qualified person to actually live in the main house if he was in occupation of the Annexe as it was all one property was belied by the effort taken over the purported licence, the physical separation of the two by a wall, and the fact that the Vernons marketed the main house and the Annexe for sale as separate units and applied for a separate housing consent in respect of the Annexe. 

Details of Mitigation:

Mr Venton was a first time offender.  He stated that he and his wife had been confused and believed that they could occupy the Annexe and rent out the main house to unqualified persons as it was all one property.  He had taken advice from an estate agent.  The situation had been remedied once the breach had been identified by the authorities and there had been no subsequent breach.  There was no illicit profit.  Guilty plea.  No actual deprivation of housing stock as Mr and Mrs Venton could have occupied the main house and let out the Annexe which was available for rent to non-qualified persons and yet was occupied by Mr and Mrs Venton.  Remorse was put forward by Advocate together with confirmation that Mr Venton realised his error and would take legal advice for any future transactions.  Character references. 

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

M. St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. J. C. Wakeham for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant has admitted an infraction of the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949, as amended, by failing to comply with a condition attached to the consent for the purchase of "Papillon", 6 Mont à la Brune, St Brelade, by permitting the property to be occupied by persons who did not qualify.  The breach continued for a period of 21 months in total, during which the defendant received £42,000.  It is not asserted by the Crown that he made an illicit profit.  However, the Crown do say that the defendant had deliberately sought to flout the Law and to obfuscate matters by the use of a licence arrangement involving his son.  Although there has been a guilty plea it was entered at a late stage.  Furthermore, according to the Crown, the defendant has been neither helpful nor candid in providing assistance to the investigating officers.  He was invited, the Crown say, to an interview but chose not to attend. 

2.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has had a long career as a civil servant and has no previous convictions.  He has produced references which we have considered and read and he has expressed remorse.  We ought just to confirm that in so far as the letters received from Mr Le Main, we have regard to them only in so far as they provide a reference as to his character. 

3.        The defendant has apologised to the Court and he has pleaded guilty albeit late in the day.  Advocate Wakeham has said on his behalf that he did not set out deliberately to flout the Law and he did attend, as is clear, the first interview when his wife was interviewed, and declined to attend a second because she had given their explanation to the authorities. 

4.        The broad purpose of the law, as Advocate O'Connell has told us,

"is to prevent a further aggravation of the housing shortage and to ensure that sufficient land is available for the inhabitants of the Island".  

5.        In AG-v-Muren & Peters 2000/166 it was said as follows:-

"to preserve certain parts of the housing stock with 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". 

In our view it is encumbent upon those who acquire property to ascertain what they can or cannot do and if in doubt, to take legal advice. 

6.        We are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown.  The defendant is fined on Count 1 the sum of £5,000 or 2 months' imprisonment in default, and he is ordered to pay costs to the Crown in the sum of £2,500, with a maximum period of four weeks in which to pay. 

Authorities

Housing (Jersey) Law 1949, as amended.

AG-v-Muren & Peters 2000/166.

AG-v-Wallbridge-Smith [2008] JRC 055.

AG-v-Chapman [2008] JRC 037.

AG-v-Bracken-Smith [2007] JRC 192.

AG-v-Corbel and Another 2001/28.