Troalic v AG [2000] JRC 102 (12 June 2000)

Troalic v AG [2000] JRC 102 (12 June 2000)

The appellate court held that the proper approach is to remove the illicit profit made during the relevant period and not to impose an additional penalty to signify disapproval where mens rea is not in issue.

Citation
[2000] JRC 102
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Illicit Profit, Housing Offences
Criminal Law Housing Law Sentencing Illicit Profit Housing Offences

Case Brief

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper approach to sentencing for infractions of Article 14(1)(a) of the Housing (Jersey) Law, 1949 where mens rea is not in issue?
  2. 2 Should the sentencing court impose a penalty in addition to removing illicit profit?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court held that the proper approach is to remove the illicit profit made during the relevant period and not to impose an additional penalty to signify disapproval where mens rea is not in issue.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Fine for count 1 reduced to £1,700 or 2 months' imprisonment in default
  • Fine for count 2 reduced to £1,700 or 2 months' imprisonment consecutive in default