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 bring expert evidence as to the availability of alternative sites which would ghave allowed him to comply with the notice.
Held: The court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial: ‘The practice of ruling upon the availability of a defence before any evidence has been heard has been deprecated by this court on many occasions in the past but notably in Vickers and Beard, even though, as possibly happened here it was with the encouragement, or at least the connivance, of counsel. The problems which may arise particularly when the factual basis for the proposed defence has neither been reduced to writing nor subjected to a clear and coherent formulation, are amply illustrated by the present case.’
Mantell LJ, Penry-Davey J, Rivlin QC HHJ
[2001] EWCA Crim 1395
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Vickers CACD 1975
Before arraignment, the judge had heard submissions of law on admitted facts. The judge ruled that if those admitted facts were proved or admitted in the forthcoming trial they would amount to an admission or conclusive evidence of the accused’s . .
Cited – Beard, Regina v CACD 10-May-1996
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 . .
Cited – Kent County Council v Brockman 1996
The question of whether or not a defendant has done all that he can ‘reasonably be expected’ to do to comply with a planning enforcement notice is a matter for the tribunal of fact whether it be the magistrates or the jury. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Planning
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.536020
