The defendant appealed against his conviction. He had pleaded guilty after a ruling as to the law. Hobhouse LJ said: ‘The meaning of section 179 is clear and unambiguous. Where it is within the power of the owner of the land to comply with the notice without the assistance of others, no question of a defence under subsection (3) arises. Before a defence can arise under that subsection, the owner must show that compliance with the notice is not within his own unaided powers, otherwise no question of his having to secure compliance with the notice can arise. Thus, if there are other persons in occupation of the land, it is enough if he has done everything he could reasonably be expected to do to secure that they comply with the notice. If compliance would require, for example, some engineering work and the owner is not himself able to do that work and does not have the resources to employ another to do it, he will have a defence if he can show that he did everything he could reasonably be expected to do to secure compliance with the notice. These examples suffice to illustrate the application of subsection (3). We accept, as does counsel for the prosecution, that the phrase ‘everything he could be expected to do’ must implicitly be read as ‘reasonably expected’. It applies an objective criterion of reasonableness, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, in particular any disabilities to which the owner of the land is subject.’
Judges:
Hobhouse LJ, Ebsworth, Sachs JJ
Citations:
[1996] EWCA Crim 396, [1997] 1 PLR 64
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wood, Regina v CACD 25-May-2001
The appellant was a gipsy. He had bought land and occupied it with his family but without planning permission. He now appealed against a conviction for failing to comply with an enforcement notice. He appealed saying that he had not been allowed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Planning
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.513558