Sarum Hotel -v- AG 26-Jan-2006 [2006] JCA 015 (26 January 2006)

Sarum Hotel -v- AG 26-Jan-2006 [2006] JCA 015 (26 January 2006)

There was sufficient evidence to support conviction for material change of use in 2003-2004, but not for the period 1999-2002; sentence was imposed on the wrong factual basis and should be reduced to reflect only the proven period of offending.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] JCA 015
Parties
Applicant: Sarum Hotel Limited; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
26 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence granted; convictions upheld for 2003-2004 only; sentences reduced.
Legal Topics
Material Change of Use, Hotel Vs Dwelling Classification, Building Regulations, Planning Permission, Sentencing, Delay in Prosecution, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Planning Law Public Health Law Material Change of Use Hotel Vs Dwelling Classification Building Regulations Planning Permission Sentencing +2 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarum Hotel Limited

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of hotel rooms as private dwellings constituted a material change of use under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964 and Public Health (Control of Buildings) (Jersey) Law 1956
  2. 2 Whether the conviction was supported by evidence for the entire period charged (1999-2004)
  3. 3 Whether the sentence was imposed on the correct factual basis

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence to support conviction for material change of use in 2003-2004, but not for the period 1999-2002; sentence was imposed on the wrong factual basis and should be reduced to reflect only the proven period of offending.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence granted; convictions upheld for 2003-2004 only; sentences reduced.

Orders

  • Fine on each count reduced to £2,000
  • Costs order reduced to not in excess of £10,000