Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/28

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

2^nd February, 2001

 

Before: M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Potter and Tibbo

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Jeremy Charles Corbel;

Karena Dawn Corbel (née Murray)

 

 

1 count of:   contravening Article 7(1) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, as amended, by allowing persons to occupy a unit of private dwelling accommodation without Housing Committee consent (count 1).

 

1 count of:   contravening Article14(1) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, as amended, by failing to comply with a condition attaching to a Housing Committee consent to a purchase of property, which stipulated that the property shall be occupied by the purchasers as their sole residence or shall be let unfurnished only to persons falling into the category specified in Regulation 1(1)(a)-(h) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1970, as amended, (count 2).

 

Plea:   facts admitted.

 

Age:    J. C. Corbel:  

            K.D. Corbel:  

 

Details of Offence:

 

The Defendants were individually charged with both of the above statutory infractions.   They were the joint owners of a property which they had allowed to be occupied by persons to whom they knew did not qualify under the Housing regulations.   Thus a decision was taken to prosecute them for entering into an illegal transaction and also a transaction which was in breach of a condition of the housing consent issued when the Defendants purchased the property.   The Defendants had acted out of kindness to a couple who were friends of theirs who had nowhere else to live. They did not make an illicit profit because they charged no more than they would have charged by way of rental for a tenant with proper housing qualifications. An aggravating factor was however that they had allowed the occupation to continue for a period for three years or more in the knowledge that the occupation was unlawful.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The Defendants had acted out of kindness to friends who were in need; they were co-operative from the beginning and gave full and frank statements under caution; and they admitted the infractions.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Nothing relevant as afar as the wife was concerned; the husband had a series of minor public orders/drugs/motoring offences and the Court held that he did not have the benefit of good character by way of mitigation.

 

Conclusion:

 

Count 1:   £2,000 fine or 10 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment, in respect of each Defendant.

Count 2:   £400 fine or 3 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment, in respect of each Defendant.

                £500 costs, in respect of each Defendant.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Count 1:   £2,250 fine or 3 months' imprisonment in default of payment, in respect of each Defendant.

Count 2:   No fine.

                £500 costs, in respect of each Defendant.

 

The Court was critical of the Crown for bringing separate charges against each accused.   On the basis that the offences arose out of the same facts and the property was jointly owned the Court recommended that in future persons in these circumstances should be jointly charged.   In addition the Court criticised the Crown for prosecuting under the provisions of Article 14 and Article 7 when only one charge was necessary to do justice.  The Court said this on the basis that both offences arose out of the same set of facts and it was oppressive to prosecute under separate Articles of the same statute arising out of the same facts.   The Court nevertheless observed that the Defendants had continued the illegal letting in the knowledge that it was illegal over a protracted period.

 

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

Advocate A. Clark for the Defendants.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            This is a straightforward case of persons who ignored the Housing Law.  They knew that the property could only be let to residentially qualified persons but for three years they let to a couple who were not so qualified.

 

2.            The Crown accepts that there was no illicit profit, but nevertheless it was a breach carried out over a long period and as this Court said in the case of AG -v- Muren & Peters (16^th August, 2000) Jersey Unreported:

 

"If such lettings to unqualified persons take place over an extended period, that will clearly be an aggravating factor, because the market will have been deprived for that period of a property available for letting to a qualified person."

 

3.            We wish to comment briefly on the form of the charges in this case.  The Crown has charged each defendant with two counts.  The first is a breach of Article 7(1) by letting to non-qualified persons and the second is a breach of Article 14(1) by failing to comply with a condition in the consent.  But in reality these two charges arise out of exactly the same facts, namely, the unlawful letting by the landlords.  In our judgment, there should not have been two charges arising out of the same set of facts.  It is oppressive.

 

4.            Secondly, there are two separate billets against the defendants; one against Mr Corbel and one against Mrs Corbel.  Again, in our judgment, that is wrong.  Mr and Mrs Corbel were the joint owners and they should have been charged jointly.  What we have to do is assess the correct penalty by ignoring the fact that there are two defendants, but simply concluding what is the right fine for an owner of property who commits an offence of this nature in these circumstances.

 

5.            In mitigation Mr Clark has emphasised that there was no illicit profit and that is accepted by the Crown.  He also states that the property was let to help friends that they had known for some years, who, because they were not qualified, were unable to find accommodation.  It was intended originally to be short-term but had simply continued.

 

6.            In the case of Mr. Corbel, he is unable to rely on good character because he has a number of previous convictions, albeit fairly minor.

 

7.            We have concluded that the right aggregate fine for this offence is £4,500 and we therefore impose a fine of £2,250 on count 1 of each billet but no penalty on count 2 of each billet.  We also order costs of £1,000 and impose a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment in default of payment against each defendant.  They will be granted a period of two weeks in which to pay.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Muren & Peters (16^th August, 2000) Jersey Unreported.