Skip to main content

Planning and Building (Jersey) 2002 Law

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.

WQ.414/2024

WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL BY DEPUTY C.D . CURTIS OF ST. HELIER CENTRAL QUESTION SUBMITTED ON MONDAY 11th NOVEMBER 2024 ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON MONDAY 18th NOVEMBER 2024

Question

"Further to Written Question 245/2024 and in relation to Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 potential offences, will H.M. Attorney General advise –

  1. what processes are in place between the Government's Regulation Department and the Law Officers' Department to pursue offences;
  2. how  many  cases  have  been  passed  from  the  Regulation  Department  to  the  Law  Officers' Department between 2020-2024, broken down by year, referencing the relevant Article where possible;
  3. how many cases his Department is currently pursuing, broken down by relevant Article where possible; and
  4. whether his Department follow a specific methodology for establishing public interest when considering cases?"

Answer (a)

The process is set out in the Attorney General's guidance note for officers of regulatory departments when considering whether or not a suspected breach of the law should be referred to the Attorney General.

(b) and (c) – Answered in the table below

 

 

How Many Cases

under which articles offences have been determined

ongoing

outcome

2020

0

 

 

 

2021

0

 

 

 

2022

2

  Article 44(7)   Articles 86 + 89

1

Fine - £7,000

2023

3

Article 44

1

1 – Advice given – No further action 1 – Advice given – retrospective planning granted

2024

0

 

 

 

(d)

Guidance on the public interest test is set out in the Attorney General's Code on the Decision to Prosecute (paragraphs 13-19). The public interest test (the second of two stages in any decision to prosecute) is fact specific and each case is determined on its own merits.