1998/200 - AG v Pirzada [1998] UR 200 (9 October 1998)

1998/200 - AG v Pirzada [1998] UR 200 (9 October 1998)

The Defendant, though experienced, committed regulatory infractions. Mitigation was considered due to cooperation and lack of illicit profit, but consecutive fines were imposed to reflect the seriousness of the breaches.

Citation
[1998] UR 200
Parties
Defendant: Mr Pirzada; Prosecution: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to fines with default imprisonment and costs.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Fines, Housing Regulation
Criminal Law Sentencing Fines Housing Regulation

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

Mr Pirzada

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's infractions were intentional
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for regulatory breaches

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant, though experienced, committed regulatory infractions. Mitigation was considered due to cooperation and lack of illicit profit, but consecutive fines were imposed to reflect the seriousness of the breaches.

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to fines with default imprisonment and costs.

Orders

  • Fine of £1,000 on count 1 or one month imprisonment in default
  • Fine of £1,000 on count 2 or one month imprisonment in default, consecutive