A long-running planning row is set to play out in Jersey’s Royal Court over the coming weeks, with a local builder pursuing a claim of malfeasance in public office against several senior government figures.
Michael John Neville is taking legal action against eight current and former public officials and the States Employment Board, as their official employer, alleging that they engaged in a malicious campaign against him during a planning enforcement case that led to his prosecution in 2010.
But the defendants in the case, which centres on a planning dispute over uPVC windows installed at properties in Devonshire Place, St Helier, have described the claims as “absurd and vexatious”.
A long-running row…
Mr Neville claims that officials within the Planning Department pursued him unfairly, issuing an enforcement notice over the windows, refusing to consider retrospective approval, and then instigating a prosecution against him. He claims his property was dealt with differently to another property nearby.
Mr Neville argues that the actions taken against him were driven by personal animosity and a deliberate misuse of power, rather than legitimate concerns.
Mr Neville was found guilty of breaching planning laws and fined £1,000 in the Magistrate’s Court in 2010. However, three years later, he successfully appealed his conviction in the Royal Court.
The appeal was not opposed at the time, based on concerns about the prosecution, including a submission that the enforcement notice contained legal defects.
Bid to rectify “harm” done
Mr Neville was awarded his costs from public funds after the appeal, but now claims that this was not enough to rectify the harm done.
It led him to complain to the States of Jersey Police, and officers from Norfolk Police conducted an independent investigation into alleged corruption in the Planning Department.
However, the Norfolk Constabulary’s £48,000 probe concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution – though they did state that evidence gathered suggested a “dysfunctional” system which was “not fit for purpose”.
In 2023, the Royal Court ruled that Mr Neville would be able to pursue civil claims instead.
Nearly two years later, and 15 years after the original prosecution, those claims are now set to be heard in the Royal Court today.
In a 26-page order of justice obtained by Express in advance of the trial, Mr Neville alleges that officials conspired against him, withheld evidence, and misled the court during his original trial – something strongly denied.
Among the evidence he shared in support of his argument that the defendants continuously “acted with intentional malice” towards him, he said that one of the Enforcement Officers expressed pleasure during his sentencing by “grinning” in what Mr Neville considered to be an “inappropriate manner”.
Mr Neville shared an email sent by an Enforcement Officer to colleagues in the Planning Department at the conclusion of the trial, which read: “Folks. Mick Neville was found guilty late Friday. He was not sentenced as Peter Harris wanted him to “calm down” before hand. I’ll find out when sentencing is and update then. Thank you for your help with this case.”
The Department’s Assistant Director responded with: “Good work.”
Mr Neville said the email was “knowingly false and defamatory”, with the sentencing having been delayed so that Mr Neville could write a letter detailing his mitigation – not because he needed to “calm down”.
“No conspiracy, no malice, no misfeasance”
In their nine-page reply, the defendants insisted that the process around Mr Neville’s prosecution was lawful and justified.
They argued that Neville was never the target of any conspiracy, but rather had simply failed to comply with planning rules.
They described his use of the word “perjury” as “scandalous in a civil pleading” and said that it was neither “admitted nor denied” that an Enforcement Officer was “grinning” because he “cannot recall such a trivial fact”.
Further, they denied a claim from Mr Neville that there had been a “dress-rehearsal” for his Magistrate’s Court trial, saying that this was nothing more than a “court familiarisation visit”.
The nine defendants
Keith Bray, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer at Planning, having previously been employed by the States of Jersey Police, retiring in 2008
Jerry Bolton, also employed as an Enforcement Officer after serving in the States of Jersey Police and retiring in 2009
Andrew Scate, the Chief Officer of the Planning and Environment Department
Daniel Scaife, a Centenier who was employed as the Chef de Police of the Parish of St Helier
Advocate Robin Morris, who was employed as a legal adviser in the Law Officers’ Department
Tracey Ingle, who was the Head of the Historic Buildings Department at Planning
Peter Le Gresley, Assistant Director in the Planning Department
Marion Jones, who was employed at the Planning Department
The States Employment Board, which is a panel of politicians which officially act as the employer of all public sector workers in Jersey, which Mr Neville says makes it “vicariously liable” for the actions of the other defendants
(Another Director of the Planning and Environment Department was originally a named party, but passed away in 2020)
Reflecting on the case as a whole, the defendants said: “Errors may have been made, but this is reflected in the fact he won his appeal and was awarded his costs. There was no conspiracy, no malice, and no misfeasance.”
They also argued that planning disputes frequently lead to dissatisfaction, but that does not mean they are wrong, unlawful or malicious.
“Some applications fail, others succeed after modifications and discussions. The fact that his appeal was successful does not mean the prosecution was malicious,” their written response to the claims read.
The defence further described Mr Neville’s claim as “absurd and vexatious, based on no actual evidence but rather the Plaintiff’s own opinions”.
Trial could last two weeks
Mr Neville is seeking damages for financial losses and emotional distress, claiming that the case harmed his reputation and business.
However, the defendants argue that he has provided no evidence of financial harm and that he had a duty to mitigate any losses.
The Royal Court trial is set to begin today and currently scheduled to last more than a week, with testimony expected from senior planning officials and others involved in the original case.
Follow Express for updates…