Skip to main content

Ex gratia payment: Mr. D. Turner (P.46/2012) – comments.

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

EX GRATIA PAYMENT: MR. D. TURNER (P.46/2012) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 28th May 2012 by the Minister for Planning and Environment

STATES GREFFE

2012   Price code: A  P.46 Com.

COMMENTS

  1. This case relates to the prosecution of a restaurant for failing to comply with the  terms  of  an  Enforcement  Notice  served  by  the  Planning  Department pursuant to Article 40 of the 2002 Planning Law on 7th May 2011. The owner of the business was charged with the criminal offence of breaching the Notice during May and June 2011 on 2nd December 2011. Since 3rd July 2011, there have been no enforcement issues.
  2. The Minister does not accept the Deputy 's criticisms in respect of a case that was  not  straightforward.  The Minister  has  confidence  in the  Department which worked hard on a case which ultimately resulted in a prosecution and guilty plea, but at the same time acknowledges that one can always improve and the Department will be better for the experience. Of course, the Minister also  acknowledges  that  residents  suffered  as  a  result  of  the  conduct  that resulted in the issuing of the Enforcement Notice and the prosecution.
  3. Proposition  46/2012  invites  the  States  Assembly  to agree  an  ex gratia payment  to a  prosecution  witness  in the  sum  of  £7,757,  described  as compensation for costs incurred by the witness in gathering evidence to deal with an alleged breach of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.
  4. It is understood that only £1,626 of this sum directly relates to the expense incurred in obtaining evidence. The remaining £6,131 relates to legal expenses incurred by the witness.
  5. It seems that the Proposition's primary aim isto compensate the witness for legal expenses incurred in appointing a lawyer to assist him, inter alia, to present his concerns and complaints to the Planning Department from 12th January 2010 to 17th May 2011.
  6. The Minister accepts that the Department encouraged the witness to gather evidence for the benefit of the Department and therefore has paid Mr. Turner the sum of £1,626 as a Departmental expense.
  7. The claim for legal fees in the sum of £6,131 is a different matter. There is no obvious connection between the taking of legal advice and the gathering of evidence. As a matter of law, the Minister is not obliged to pay a member of the  public  their  legal  fees  because  he  or  she  feels  that  the  Department's decisions are not correct. Indeed, the 2002 Law precludes the Minister from making such payments. If this payment is allowed, then presumably the States of Jersey will, in order to be consistent, have to consider making ex gratia payments in respect of all individuals who instruct lawyers when they feel that the Planning Department has been slow to act or has taken a wrong decision. Whilst  the  Minister  has  every  sympathy  for  Mr. Turner  in terms  of  the difficulties caused by the breaches of the planning conditions in this case that has since been put right, itis not appropriate to pay the legal fees in this case. It is contrary to the Law.

Financial and manpower implications

Any payment will need to be met from the existing resources of the Department of the Environment.

Page - 2

P.46/2012 Com.