JEKYLL AND HYDE PROSECUTIONS

 

07. Jun. 2010. – 10:41:51

When Robert Louis Stevenson published "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" in 1886 little did he realise that the name[s] of the central character would become synonymous with behaviour that can only be described as schizophrenic either literally or metaphorically.

And a Jekyll and Hyde performance was the only way to describe the local council`s prosecuting performance a couple of months ago when various cases were before us. The afternoon began with two matters of estate agents having erected boards and in the first instance also an advertising hording apparently without the correct authority. The prosecutor told us the facts and the first agent pleaded guilty but after listening carefully to his mitigation which involved many years` history and pages of documents [he was unrepresented] and revolved around "grandfather rights" we concluded it was an equivocal plea and ordered a trial. This provoked concerned looks all round and in order to ensure justice was seen to be done we stayed our decision and put the matter back so that the parties could have further discussions. Eventually on the parties` return and the defendant`s final plea of guilty we fined his firm £500 plus a similar sum for costs. The prosecutor had had a clearly documented file and the defendant had only himself to blame for being in contravention of the planning laws.

The very next case of a broadly similar nature with another guilty plea from an unrepresented defendant whose mitigation prompted so many questions from the bench to the prosecutor that he admitted that the quality of preparation was such that the matter should and could have been settled weeks previously. There was a history of many unanswered e-mails from the defendant, telephone calls to the council not returned and letters sent to wrong addresses. This estate agent was however guilty. He was given a conditional discharge for six months and no costs were ordered.

The third and final case that afternoon had the prosecutor presenting a clearly documented file of over ten pages with umpteen e-mails, phone calls and letters to and from the defendant over seven years laid out in meticulous fashion. A garage owner had purchased a freehold comprising a garage, two retail outlets and flat. He had let the flat and shops and carried out a car repair business from that area of the premises making, he told us later, about £10,000 p/a profit from the garage. The only problem for him was that he had not received planning permissions for the car repair business and alterations to the building. The brief history was that after hoping that his ignoring the council`s letters would make the problem go away and belatedly not taking professional advice when he eventually responded this defendant had virtually no mitigation to offer after he had pleaded guilty except to apologise for his inaction as above and a litany of feeble excuses.

When it came to his completing a "means form" prior to sentencing it took a lengthy question and answer session to prise from him the profit figures over the years of illegal trading. His defiance of council planning requirements was expensive. He was ordered to pay around £11,000 in fine and costs.

When councils set their minds to it their prosecutions can be a model of efficiency but when they go wrong they go badly wrong and that costs us all.