Lagadu -v- AG [2013] JRC 076 (17 April 2013)

Lagadu -v- AG [2013] JRC 076 (17 April 2013)

The appellant admitted parking the vehicle in a prohibited area. The law imposes liability on the person who causes or permits the vehicle to wait, regardless of registered ownership. The appellant's arguments regarding company ownership and procedural matters were meritless and did not provide a defence. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] JRC 076
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (name not specified); Respondent: Attorney General (Respondent)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Parking Offences, Corporate Vehicle Ownership, Personal Liability, Prosecution Costs
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Parking Offences Corporate Vehicle Ownership Personal Liability Prosecution Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (name not specified)

Appellant

Attorney General (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted for causing or permitting a vehicle to wait in a prohibited area when the vehicle was registered to a company
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution should have been brought against the company rather than the appellant personally
  3. 3 Whether procedural or technical errors in service of summons or conduct of parking attendants provided a defence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant admitted parking the vehicle in a prohibited area. The law imposes liability on the person who causes or permits the vehicle to wait, regardless of registered ownership. The appellant's arguments regarding company ownership and procedural matters were meritless and did not provide a defence. The conviction and fine were therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction and fine of £70 upheld
  • appellant ordered to pay £200 towards prosecution costs on appeal