Ceredigion County Council v Robinson & Ors

Under the current wording of section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an offence is continuing after the period for compliance with an enforcement notice has expired. An information must make clear that the alleged criminal conduct occurred after that period, but it need not ordinarily state the precise date on which the period ended. The question under rule 7.3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 is whether the particulars make the prosecutor’s allegation clear and avoid reasonable confusion or prejudice. The precise expiry date may be required in exceptional cases, but was unnecessary where the information identified the enforcement notice, the alleged contravention and the period of offending.

The Council appealed by way of case stated against a Crown Court decision allowing the respondents’ appeals against convictions for breaches of planning enforcement notices. The informations alleged offending after 11 February 2012 but did not state expressly the date on which the compliance period expired. The Crown Court, relying on Maltedge and Frost v Wokingham District Council, held that the omission was fatal. The central issues were whether that decision applied under the amended section 179 provisions and whether the informations adequately particularised the alleged offences.

The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the Crown Court to conduct the appeal in accordance with the judgment.

1. The court distinguished the statutory regime considered in Maltedge and Frost v Wokingham District Council. Under the earlier wording, the offence depended on whether required steps had been taken within the compliance period. The precise expiry date was therefore defining and had to be alleged and proved.
2. Under the current section 179 provisions, the offence may be committed at any time after the end of the compliance period. It is a continuing offence. The prosecution must prove that the period had expired before the alleged contravention, but need not ordinarily prove or plead the precise day on which it expired. The court endorsed the approach in Sanger v Newham London Borough Council.
3. Applying rule 7.3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, the touchstone was whether the informations could cause reasonable confusion or prejudice. They identified the defendants, the offence, the legislation, the enforcement notice, the land, the alleged failures and the period of offending.
4. Although the informations did not expressly state that the compliance period had expired, that was a necessary inference because the alleged conduct could otherwise not constitute a breach. The informations made clear that the prosecution alleged criminal conduct after the relevant obligations had arisen. The court recognised that exceptional cases might require the precise expiry date to be stated.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by case stated allowed; the matter was remitted to the Crown Court.
• Crown Court sitting at Swansea: Appeals against convictions allowed because the informations were held defective.
• Magistrates’ Court: The respondents were convicted after an earlier acquittal based on alleged abuse of process was reversed on appeal by the Divisional Court.