BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Benest [2002] JRC 118 (11 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2002/2002_118.html Cite as: [2002] JRC 118 |
||
[New search] [Help]
2002/118
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
11th June 2002
|
Before: |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Ruez and Clapham. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Anthony George Benest.
|
1 count of: |
Contravening Article 8 (1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964 by creating a bridle path, which constituted development, without development permission. (count 2) |
[On 19th October, 2001, the Defendant denied the facts of this and two other counts, counts 1 and 3; a trial was ordered, which started on 22nd January 2002, when the defendant admitted the facts of count 2, and the Crown then accepted his denial of the facts on counts 1 and 3, which were therefore dismissed.]
On 15th March 2002, at the sentence hearing, a dispute on the facts of the contravention arose and a 'Newton' hearing was ordered.
Newton Hearing
J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J.P. Michel for the accused.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. The finding of the Jurats is as follows:
(i) The Court is sure that Mr Stein did not during the course of a telephone conversation, after the initial meeting on site in the summer of 2000, state to Mr. Benest words to the effect that a permit was not required as the works would be within the curtilage of the property.
(ii) The Court is sure that the question of horse trails was mentioned at the site meeting in Field 1451 in the summer of 2000.
(iii) The Court is, however, not satisfied, to the criminal standard of proof, that Mr. Benest positively stated at that meeting that the horses would form the trails themselves. But the Court is satisfied that Mr. Stein, for whatever reason, drew that inference and that that was the reason why he said at that meeting that no application for development permission was necessary.
(iv) At no stage did Mr. Benest make clear to Mr. Stein the nature and scale of the development, including the fact that it would require mechanical diggers, but nor did Mr. Stein ask the appropriate questions to establish the nature and scale of the activities.
