[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/95 - AG v British Broadcasting Corporation [1998] UR 95 (8 May 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/95.html Cite as: [1998] UR 95

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

8^th May, 1998

Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats

Le Ruez and Le Breton

AG

-v-

British Broadcasting Corporation

1 Count of contravening Article 14 (1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949, to comply with a condition of a Housing Committee consent to a purchase of a property, that any unit of private dwelling accommodation should not, without the Committees consent, be let unfurnished or be occupied by any persons other than those approved by the Committee as being persons of a category specified in Regulations 1 (1)(a) - (h) of the Housing (General Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 1970.

Plea: Facts admitted

Details of Offence:

In 1984 the BBC obtained consent to purchase a property. Condition 2 was the statutory (a) to (h) occupancy condition. Condition 3 allowed occupation by the then manager of BBC Radio Jersey for the duration of his employment. In breach of condition the Corporation allowed his successor to occupy without the Committees consent. In 1993 BBC wrote to the Committee to state a third manager would be taking up residence. The Committee wrote back pointing out need for consent. Because it thought the breach inadvertent and unintentional it treated the letter as an application for consent and granted consent for three years for the new manager but stressed the need to apply for consent for his successor. That consent expired January 1997. In October 1997, the BBC wrote to the Committee, stated the manager was still in occupation although the period had expired and asking for an extension of the consent. The prosecution was brought because the BBC had disregarded the condition once and been treated leniently.

Details of Mitigation:

The breach was unintentional. The BBC apologised for it. The previous letter had gone to the Personnel Section who had no experience of such matters and did not know what to do with the letter. A consent had now been given for a successor manager. No accommodation had been lost to the local population.

Previous Convictions:

None relevant

Conclusions:

£5,000. £1,000 costs

Sentence and Observations

of the Court:

£3,000 fine, £1,000 costs

The Solicitor General

Advocate C J Scholefield for the defendant corporation

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: The Court accepts that the infraction of the Housing Regulations by the British Broadcasting Corporation was inadvertent in the sense that it was not deliberate. It arose, however, as a result of the negligent failure of the Corporation to appreciate the importance of a letter which spelt out the Corporations obligations with reasonable clarity after a lapse which took place in 1993.

The vice of the infraction is that the Housing Regulations exist to ensure that sufficient land is available for the inhabitants of the island and the system of consents granted under regulation 1(1)(j) is used to limit the amount of accommodation taken up by a wide range of organisations with employees who are accepted as being essentially employed.

We have to impose a penalty which encourages those organisations, whether in the commercial sector or in the public service sector, to understand that observance of obligations under the Housing Law Regulations is a matter of importance.

We accept the submissions of Mr Scholefield for the Corporation that in this case the infraction was of relatively short duration and that it was brought to the attention of the Department by the Corporation themselves. We have also noted the gracious apology which has been submitted on behalf of the Corporation by Counsel.

Taking those matters into account we feel able to reduce slightly the conclusions for which the Solicitor General has moved. We accordingly impose a fine of £3,000 and we order the Corporation to pay costs as requested by the Crown in the sum of £1,000.

No Authorities