AG v Ribeiro [2001] JRC 26 (26 January 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 26
- 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 defendant breached the Lodging Houses (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1962 by exceeding the permitted number of lodgers without registration, and lack of intent does not absolve liability, though it may mitigate punishment.
Court disposition
conviction and fine
Orders
- Fine of £500 or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment
- Order to pay £125 towards prosecution costs
- Fine and costs to be paid at the rate of £20 per week
02
Material facts
Parties
Mr. Ribeiro
DefendantAttorney General
Prosecutor Counsel: Crown AdvocateAmounts and remedies
- Fine: GBP 500
- Prosecution Costs: GBP 125
- Weekly Payment Rate: GBP 20
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant breached the Lodging Houses (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1962 by exceeding the permitted number of lodgers without registration
- 02
Whether lack of intent or misunderstanding of the law mitigates liability
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant did not intentionally break the law and genuinely believed children were not included in the maximum number of lodgers permitted without registration.
- Respondent
- The defendant breached the Lodging Houses (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1962 by exceeding the permitted number of lodgers, regardless of intent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning
It is the duty of every property owner to comply with the law and to take proper steps to ascertain what the law is.
- 02
Court's reasoning
Lack of intent or misunderstanding does not excuse a breach of statutory law, but may be considered in mitigation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant breached the Lodging Houses (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1962 by exceeding the permitted number of lodgers without registration, and lack of intent does not absolve liability, though it may mitigate punishment.
Obiter and limits
- The defendant was extremely co-operative and there was no deliberate intention to break the law.
Court disposition
conviction and fine
- Fine of £500 or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment
- Order to pay £125 towards prosecution costs
- Fine and costs to be paid at the rate of £20 per week
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. It is the duty of every property owner not only to comply with the law but to take steps - and by that we mean proper steps - to find out what the law is. We accept that this defendant did not intentionally break the law and that he genuinely believed that the children were not included in the maximum number of five lodgers which he was permitted to take without registering his premises under the Lodging Houses (Registration) (Jersey) Law 1962 . Nonetheless, at the end of the day, he has broken the law and we must punish him for that breach of the law.
2. We take into account, however, that he was extremely co-operative and that, as we have said, there was no deliberate intention to break the law. Having taken account of the mitigation which we have heard from Counsel we are going to moderate slightly the conclusions of the Crown Advocate.
3. Mr. Ribeiro, will you stand up, please. The Court is going to fine you for this breach of the Lodging Houses Law the sum of £500, or in default of payment 1 month's imprisonment, and we order you to pay £125 towards the cost of the prosecution. The fine and the costs will be paid at the rate of £20 per week. Authorities A. G. -v- MacKenzie (19 th November, 1990) Jersey Unreported. A. G. -v- Brito (1 st February, 2000) Jersey Unreported.. Page Last Updated: 19 Aug 2015 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.