Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC134

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

19^th July 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Morgan

The Attorney General

-v-

Bled Limited

Dean Martin Sullivan

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

Bled Limited

4 counts of:

Contravention of Article 20(1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949, as amended (Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4).

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Bled Limited was a company wholly owned by Mr Sullivan and his wife.  Bled Limited purchased a property in June 2007 - 62 Stopford Road, St Helier - which was a five bedroom family house with a commercial unit on the ground floor.  The property was designated to be occupied in accordance with Regulation 1(1)(a) to (h).  When the Population Office Compliance Officer visited the property there were nine illegal occupants found to be residing at the property, none of whom had residential Housing qualifications.  Over a material period of approximately 20 months, Mr Sullivan personally collected rent from the illegal occupants amounting to £41,850.  Mr Sullivan had had plenty of opportunity to seek advice about the legality of what he was doing, particularly once he owned a registered lodging house in September 2008 and knew that such matters were regulated.  At sentencing it was accepted by defence counsel that over a given 5-month period, approximately £5,000 of the rental income collected by Mr Sullivan was illicit profit. 

Details of Mitigation:

Early admissions; co-operation; remorse.  Thought having a qualified person in the commercial unit made it lawful for residential units to be occupied by non-qualified persons. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant. 

Conclusions:

A total fine of £12,000 in respect of the 8 charges, i.e. £1,500 on each of charges 1-8; 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment of fine in charges 5-8.  Costs in the sum of £2,500 jointly and severally. 

Count 1:	£1,500 fine.
Count 2:	£1,500 fine.
Count 3:	£1,500 fine.
Count 4:	£1,500 fine.

Total:  £6,000 plus costs of £2,500. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions too low. 

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

Total:  £20,000 fine plus costs of £2,500. 

Period of 3 months given in which to pay. 

Dean Martin Sullivan

4 counts of:

Contravention of Article 20(2) of the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949, as amended (Counts 5, 6, 7 and 8).

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

As Bled Limited above. 

Details of Mitigation:

As Bled Limited above. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant. 

Conclusions:

A total fine of £12,000 in respect of the 8 charges, i.e. £1,500 on each of charges 1-8; 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment of fine in charges 5-8.  Costs in the sum of £2,500 jointly and severally. 

Count 5:	£1,500 fine.
Count 6:	£1,500 fine.
Count 7:	£1,500 fine.
Count 8:	£1,500 fine.

Total:  £6,000 plus costs of £2,500. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions too low. 

Count 5:	£1,250 fine or 6 weeks' imprisonment in default.
Count 6:	£1,250 fine or 6 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive, in default.
Count 7:	£1,250 fine or 6 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive, in default.
Count 8:	£1,250 fine or 6 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive, in default.

Total:  £5,000 fine plus costs of £2,500 or 12 weeks' imprisonment in default. 

Period of 3 months given in which to pay. 

Mrs S. Sharpe., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. C. Goulborn for the Defendant Company.

Advocate M. C. Goulborn for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Bled Limited and you have admitted infractions of the Housing Law over a period of approximately, March 2008 until November 2009, in respect of the different units of accommodation at 62 Stopford Road.  It is not the same period for each of those units but that is the longest of those periods.  It is quite clear that the result of those lettings was that the company was able to exploit the non-qualified housing market and that is not an attractive consequence of the offending on which you are being sentenced for breach of the Housing Law, the purpose of which is to reserve properties of this kind for those who have residential qualifications. 

2.        There is no doubt in the Court's mind that there has been some illicit profit which has been made as a result of these lettings.  We have been out quite a long time because we have been trying to identify from the figures which have been provided to us, what that illicit profit might be but at the end of the day we have had regard to the figures which you have produced at tab 8 of the bundle and to the agreement of your counsel that the illicit profit was in the order of £5,000 over a 5½ month period and so we think that in total the illicit profit was not less than £15,000 in relation to the entire period and the entirety of the charges. 

3.        We have taken account of the mitigation which your counsel has put before us; the co-operation, the guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and the remorse expressed, and we have noted what has been said that you apparently believed a tenant of the commercial property, having qualifications, was good enough; but nonetheless, it is clear from the other information which is contained in the Crown's summary that you either knew or ought to have known what the position was, certainly by November 2008 when you were making enquiry about standards in registered lodging accommodation. 

4.        In the circumstances the Court thinks that there is less mitigation available to you than was the case in that of AG-v-Bracken-Smith [2007] JRC 92 which is in the bundle.  Nonetheless we have been influenced by the Crown's conclusions, which as I said to your counsel early on, we think are much too low and we are going to increase them substantially but we have been influenced by them. 

5.        The sentence on each of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 is a fine of £5,000 imposed on the company and in relation to Counts 5, 6, 7 and 8, a fine imposed on you of £1,250, that is per charge, or 6 weeks' imprisonment consecutive in relation to each Count.  So the total fine which is imposed on you and the company, if I put this together, is £25,000, which I note is the same and we note is the same as in the Bracken-Smith case.  In addition we order you and the company to pay costs of £2,500 and that order is made jointly and severally.  In relation to each of the fines imposed and in relation to the costs order, there is 3 months to pay. 

Authorities

Housing (Jersey) Law 1949.

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

AG-v-Muren and Peters 2000/166.

AG-v-Architectural Planning and Building Services Limited and Hoban 2002/161.