Regina v Major Sandhu: CACD 10 Dec 1996

The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for infringements of the 1990 Act. The house was already very severly dilapidated when it came to be listed. He was accused of making changes outside the extent of the listed buildings consent he had obtained.
Held: The offence was one of strict liability, and guilt did not depend upon any mens rea. However the prosecution had added evidence that the defendant intended to break the regulations. He had complained that this evidence was not intending to prove any necessary part of the offence and was merely prejudicial. The judge’s reasoning was unsound. Evidence which went to prove elements beyond the necessary elements of the offence and which was prejudicial was not admissible.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Sachs, Toulson JJ
Times 02-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Crim 1677, [1998] 1 PLR 17
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 7 9, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEast Riding of Yorkshire Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Hobson Admn 18-Apr-2008
The authority appealed by case stated from the dismissal of its complaints that the defendant had altered a listed building. He had been given permission to carry out certain works, but had in effect demolished and rebuilt the property.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.87670