AG v Sowney [2002] JRC 103 (24 May 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] JRC 103
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The defendant breached his obligations under the Social Security Law, 1974, over a long period, and although mitigating circumstances exist, fines and costs must be imposed.
Court disposition
conviction and fines imposed
Orders
- Fine of £100 for each count under Article 6(1), totaling £5,400
- Costs of £1,000 to be paid by defendant
- Default provision: 36 weeks imprisonment if fines not paid
- Fines may be paid at minimum rate of £75 per week
02
Material facts
Parties
Mr Sowney
DefendantCrown
Prosecutor Counsel: Crown AdvocateAmounts and remedies
- Total Breach Amount: GBP 8,176.48
- Total Fine Imposed: GBP 5,400
- Costs Imposed: GBP 1,000
- Minimum Weekly Payment: GBP 75
- Default Prison Sentence: 36
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant breached obligations under the Social Security Law, 1974
- 02
Appropriate penalty for breach
- 03
Mitigation based on cooperation and financial difficulties
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant had financial difficulties, was cooperative, and paid arrears on the day of the summons. He may have been misled by another individual and has no criminal record.
- Respondent
- Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The breach was serious and prolonged. The defendant only paid arrears after the summons, despite having sold property earlier.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Social Security Law, 1974
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breach.
- 02
General criminal law principles
Mitigating circumstances may reduce penalties but do not absolve liability.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant breached his obligations under the Social Security Law, 1974, over a long period, and although mitigating circumstances exist, fines and costs must be imposed.
Obiter and limits
- Any builder in Jersey must be aware of his obligations under the law.
- If the defendant had acted earlier, he would not be in court today.
Court disposition
conviction and fines imposed
- Fine of £100 for each count under Article 6(1), totaling £5,400
- Costs of £1,000 to be paid by defendant
- Default provision: 36 weeks imprisonment if fines not paid
- Fines may be paid at minimum rate of £75 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 COMMISSIONER: 1. Everyone has obligations under the Social Security Law, 1974 . The obligations are not onerous; the consequences of breach are always serious, because if one does not pay then others who do so have to bear the burden at the end of the day.
2. This was as you know a serious breach over a long period which starts in 1996, and amounts in total to £8,176.48. Any builder in Jersey must be aware of his obligations under the law. The booklet issued by the Social Security Committee, for instance, could not be clearer. The copy we have says this:- "The Social Security Classification Jersey Order, 1974, has been changed. All labour owning contractors and sub-contractors working in the construction and building industry are classified as employed persons." 3. We have excellent references, and Mr Sowney has no criminal record whatsoever. He may have been duped by Mr Blackshaw but it was this aberration that led Mr Sowney to provide further details of four more individuals.
4. The Crown has taken level 2 fines and whilst we appreciate the defendant has had financial difficulties we cannot, of course, find in mitigation that ignorance of the law is an excuse. We appreciate that the defendant has been co-operative; but the arrears were only paid on the day that the summons was issued, despite the fact that of the two properties in which he had an interest one had been sold some weeks previously. I have to say this: if he had acted earlier, he would not he in court today. Because of all the mitigating circumstances we are in fact going to reduce the conclusions slightly, but the costs must be paid, they lie entirely at the door of the defendant.
5. We will follow the conclusions of the Crown but we will reduce the Article 6(1) infraction to £100 for each count. That makes a total of fine of £5,400 to which of course we add £1,000 costs and the default provisions as stated by the Crown Advocate remain to make a total prison sentence of 36 weeks if the fines are not paid. They may be paid at the minimum rate of £75 per week. Authorities A. G.-v- Hervé (29 th March, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/77]. A. G.-v- Cahours (15 th December, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/250A] AG v Lagadu - (17 th November, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/228]. 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.