AG v APBS and Hoban [2002] JRC 161 (30 August 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] JRC 161
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The fines imposed are reasonable and proportionate in light of the deliberate and knowing breaches of housing law, and there is no double jeopardy as the totality of the fines is considered.
Court disposition
convicted and fined
Orders
- Defendant company fined £1,500 on charge 1 and £1,000 on charge 2
- Mr. Hoban fined £1,500 or 2 months' imprisonment in default on charge 1
- Mr. Hoban fined £1,000 or 1 month imprisonment consecutive on charge 2
- Total fines of £2,500 or 3 months' imprisonment in default for Mr. Hoban
- Costs of prosecution not exceeding £1,000 to be paid jointly and severally by company and Mr. Hoban
- 1 month granted to pay fines
02
Material facts
Parties
Mr. Hoban
DefendantDefendant Company
DefendantAttorney General
ProsecutorAmounts and remedies
- Fine on Company Charge 1: GBP 1,500
- Fine on Company Charge 2: GBP 1,000
- Fine on Mr. Hoban Charge 1: GBP 1,500
- Fine on Mr. Hoban Charge 2: GBP 1,000
- Total Fine on Mr. Hoban: GBP 2,500
- Prosecution Costs (maximum): GBP 1,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the fines imposed constitute double jeopardy given the defendant's relationship to the company
- 02
Appropriateness and totality of fines for deliberate breaches of housing law
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel argued mitigation and raised the issue of potential double jeopardy due to the defendant's alter ego relationship with the company.
- Respondent
- Prosecution sought fines for deliberate breaches of housing law, emphasizing the need to punish knowing infractions to preserve housing stock for qualified residents.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning in judgment
Purpose of housing law is to preserve housing stock for those with residential qualifications; deliberate breaches must be punished.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The fines imposed are reasonable and proportionate in light of the deliberate and knowing breaches of housing law, and there is no double jeopardy as the totality of the fines is considered.
Court disposition
convicted and fined
- Defendant company fined £1,500 on charge 1 and £1,000 on charge 2
- Mr. Hoban fined £1,500 or 2 months' imprisonment in default on charge 1
- Mr. Hoban fined £1,000 or 1 month imprisonment consecutive on charge 2
- Total fines of £2,500 or 3 months' imprisonment in default for Mr. Hoban
- Costs of prosecution not exceeding £1,000 to be paid jointly and severally by company and Mr. Hoban
- 1 month granted to pay fines
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. Mr. Hoban, the Court has given careful consideration to everything that has been said, and very eloquently, by your counsel on your behalf and in particular the Court has given consideration to the question of whether there is an element of double jeopardy in the conclusions, in the sense that we accept that the company is your alter ego and that you will ultimately pay the fines moved for in respect of the company.
2. We have as a result stood back from the matter and tried to look at the question in the sense of the totality of the fines moved for. Having done that we are, in fact, satisfied that the fines moved for are reasonable. You went into this with your eyes open. The purpose of the Housing Law is to preserve certain parts of the housing stock for 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.
3. We accept all the points made by your counsel in mitigation on your behalf, but the conclusions are granted and the defendant company is accordingly fined £1,500 on charge 1 and £1,000 on charge 2. And you are fined £1,500, or in default of payment 2 months' imprisonment on charge 1; and £1,000 or 1 month, consecutive on charge 2, making a total of £2,500 or 3 months' imprisonment in default and we order that the costs of the prosecution, not exceeding £1,000 will be paid by the company and by you, jointly and severally. We will give the defendant 1 month to pay the fines. Authorities AG -v- Muren and Peters (16 th August 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/166] Page Last Updated: 21 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.