Jersey Judgment

Jeune v AG [2000] JRC 66 (14 April 2000)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The penalty imposed cannot be upheld as it was based on an unlawful agreement to dispense with a statutory provision; appeal against sentence allowed, conviction stands.

Court disposition

appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed

Orders

  • sentence and costs quashed
  • absolute discharge substituted

02

Material facts

Parties

Pauline Thérèse Jeune

Appellant

Crown Advocate Belhomme

Respondent Counsel: Belhomme

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine: GBP 25
  • Costs: GBP 35

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court to Royal Court

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant argued that an agreement existed between the nursery school and the Public Services Department allowing short-term free parking for parents collecting children, and that she displayed the relevant permit.
Respondent
Crown Advocate argued there was no statutory authority for the agreement, and presented evidence that no permit was displayed at the time of the offence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Magistrate's Court (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1949: Article 14

    Appeal against conviction is not permitted after a guilty plea unless substantial grounds exist such as mistake, duress, or fraud.

  2. 02

    General principle of statutory interpretation

    Public authorities cannot dispense with statutory provisions at their discretion; exemptions must be provided for by amending the law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The penalty imposed cannot be upheld as it was based on an unlawful agreement to dispense with a statutory provision; appeal against sentence allowed, conviction stands.

Obiter and limits

  • States Departments cannot lawfully dispense with statutory requirements without legislative amendment.
  • Dispute over permit display need not be resolved given the unlawfulness of the agreement.

Court disposition

appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed

  • sentence and costs quashed
  • absolute discharge substituted

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2000] JRC 66

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. The appellant, Pauline Thérèse Jeune was convicted in the Magistrate's Court on 16 th March, 2000, of an infraction of the Road Traffic (Public Parking Places)(Jersey) Order, 1985 (as amended) by parking her car in the Route du Fort car park in St. Helier without displaying a parking card.

2. The appellant pleaded guilty to this offence and was fined £25 and ordered to pay costs of £35.

3. Article 14 of the Magistrate's Court (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law, (as amended) provides in terms that a person convicted in the Magistrate's Court may appeal to the Royal Court if she pleaded guilty or admitted the facts against her sentence and may otherwise appeal against conviction or sentence.

4. Having pleaded guilty to the charge in the Magistrate's Court, this appellant has, on the face of it, no right of appeal against conviction.

5. Crown Advocate Belhomme has, however, very properly brought to our attention a decision of this Court in Bish -v- AG (18 th May, 1992) Jersey Unreported; (1992) JLR N-6. In that case the Court accepted on the basis of some previous decisions that the Court was in certain circumstances entitled to look behind the plea and assume jurisdiction where either the accused did not appreciate the nature of the offence or where there were any other grounds entitling the Court to do so.

6. We would, perhaps, add to that the qualification that there must be substantial grounds to enable the Court to reach the conclusion that what purported to be a guilty plea was entered by mistake, duress, or fraud and should therefore be regarded as a nullity.

7. We can find in this case no ground for concluding that the guilty plea was tainted in that way and the appeal against conviction must therefore be dismissed.

8. The appeal against sentence does, however, raise further considerations. The appellant is a grandparent who has for the last year collected her grandson aged 4 from a nursery school in the vicinity of the Route du Fort car park. The appellant told us that there was an agreement between the nursery school attended by her grandchild and the Public Services Dept., whereby those who were delivering or collecting children from school were entitled to use the car park for a short period without charge.

9. The appellant placed before us a letter written by the Assistant Manager (Parking Control) of the Public Services Dept., in the following terms: "I am writing this correspondence to confirm the unwritten agreement we have with Toc H and a number of other primary schools on the island, namely First Tower and Goose on the Green. This agreement allows parents 15 minutes free parking in order to drop off or collect their children from school at the appropriate start and finish times. The aforementioned is only permitted on display of the relevant permit issued by the school or nursery itself." The appellant told us that the relevant permit which she placed before us was displayed in her vehicle as it had been for the past 12 months.

10. The Crown Advocate, on the other hand, placed before us an affidavit sworn by the traffic warden deposing that when the parking ticket was imposed there was no permit on display.

11. It is clear from the authorities helpfully placed before us by Crown Advocate Belhomme that there is no statutory authority for this so called agreement between the Public Services Department, and certain schools.

12. It is not open to States Departments to dispense with the law at their discretion. If the Public Services Committee wishes to have the discretion to grant exemptions it must amend the Order so as to confer upon it such a discretion. The Public will then know the basis upon which the discretion is being exercised.

13. We do not find it necessary to resolve the dispute as to whether or not the so called permit was being displayed. We cannot uphold, however, a penalty which has been imposed against the background of an unlawful agreement to dispense with a statutory provision forming part of the law of the island.

14. On that basis we allow the appeal against sentence, quash the sentence and order for costs imposed in the Magistrate's Court and substitute therefore an absolute discharge. Authorities Bish -v- AG (18 th May, 1992) Jersey Unreported; (1992) JLR N6. Magistrate's Court (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1949: Article 14. Page Last Updated: 02 Nov 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Bish -v- AG (18 May, 1992) Jersey Unreported; (1992) JLR N-6

Case cited

Road Traffic (Public Parking Places)(Jersey) Order, 1985

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Magistrate's Court (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1949: Article 14

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.