AG v Pirzada [2002] JRC 123 (28 June 2002)

AG v Pirzada [2002] JRC 123 (28 June 2002)

The defendant knowingly permitted occupancy in excess of the legal limit under housing consent, collected rent from unqualified occupants, and was the sole financial beneficiary; prior warnings and fines did not deter further violations, justifying substantial fines and costs as penalty.

Citation
[2002] JRC 123
Parties
Defendant: Mr Pirzada; Prosecutor: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
28 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment
Outcome
convicted and fined
Legal Topics
Illegal Occupancy, Landlord and Tenant, Housing Consent, Sentencing, Unlawful Profit
Criminal Law Housing Law Illegal Occupancy Landlord and Tenant Housing Consent Sentencing Unlawful Profit

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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Pirzada

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant unlawfully permitted occupancy in excess of housing consent limits
  2. 2 Whether the defendant made illicit profit from illegal occupancy
  3. 3 Appropriate sentencing approach for housing law violations

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant knowingly permitted occupancy in excess of the legal limit under housing consent, collected rent from unqualified occupants, and was the sole financial beneficiary; prior warnings and fines did not deter further violations, justifying substantial fines and costs as penalty.

Court Disposition

convicted and fined

Orders

  • Fine of £7,500 for 115 Halkett Place (counts 1-3) or 9 months' concurrent imprisonment in default
  • Costs of £1,000 for 115 Halkett Place