Manning v AG [2000] JRC 165 (16 August 2000)

Manning v AG [2000] JRC 165 (16 August 2000)

The conviction was quashed because the charge lacked sufficient particularity to inform the appellant of the case he had to meet, and because it was an abuse of process to prosecute for conduct that officers had represented as lawful.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] JRC 165
Parties
Appellant: David Ronald Manning; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Before the Magistrates Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Breach of Planning Conditions, Abuse of Process, Interpretation of Planning Permissions, Criminal Procedure
Planning Law Criminal Law Breach of Planning Conditions Abuse of Process Interpretation of Planning Permissions Criminal Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ronald Manning

Appellant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Before the Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was sufficiently particularised under Article 8(1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964
  2. 2 Whether correspondence from planning officers could vary or interpret the conditions of a development permission
  3. 3 Whether prosecution amounted to an abuse of process given representations by planning officers

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was quashed because the charge lacked sufficient particularity to inform the appellant of the case he had to meet, and because it was an abuse of process to prosecute for conduct that officers had represented as lawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction set aside
  • Appellant may apply to the Committee for formal variation of Condition 11