# / . 4 % 8 4 - ! 2 # ( MATTERS AND AFTER FORMAL AND UNEQUIVOCAL GUILTY PLEAS HAD BEEN ENTERED THERE WAS NO AGREED BASIS OF PLEA THE MAGISTRATES RETIRED FOR SOME FORTY MINUTES TO GIVE THE PARTIES OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHETHER ANY AGREEMENTS COULD BE REACHED ON THE DEFENCE S STATEMENTS OF EVIDENCE SOME OF WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPLIED ONLY TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING 4HE PROBLEM WAS THAT THE DEFENCE WISHED TO PRODUCE IN MITIGATION OF THE OFFENCES EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN PREPARED WITH THE PROSPECT OF A FULL TRIAL 4HIS WAS EVIDENCE THAT CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GUILTY OF THE OFFENCES TO WHICH HE HAD NOW PLEADED GUILTY n THIS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEFENDANT OR ANY OF HIS EXPERTS 4HE PROSPECT WAS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT AS TO THE EVIDENCE AND BASIS OF THE GUILTY PLEAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF HEARING KNOWN AS A .EWTON HEARING WOULD HAVE HAD TO TAKE PLACE (OWEVER AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AS TO WHAT WAS AND WHAT WAS NOT MITIGATION AS OPPOSED TO CONTRADICTION OF MY EVIDENCE n WHICH ) WOULD HAVE STOOD BY AND THE SENTENCING HEARING PROCEEDED 4HE DEFENCE IN MITIGATION POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD MADE NO FINANCIAL GAIN FROM THE WORKS )T WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE LESSEE SHOULD REALLY BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE GOOD WORKS THAT HE HAD DONE AND THAT ANY PENALTIES SHOULD BE MINIMAL )T WAS CLAIMED THAT THE COUNCIL S COSTS WERE HUGE AND THAT THE NUMBER OF HOURS SPENT WERE EXCESSIVE 4HE MAGISTRATES WERE INVITED TO CONSIDER THE GLOBAL PENALTY TO THE LESSEE EITHER REDUCING THE PENALTIES OR REDUCING THE COSTS !T THIS POINT ) THOUGHT THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE LESSEE HAVING PAID FOR THE WORK RANG A LITTLE HOLLOW (AVING IGNORED MY ADVICE ABOUT REPAIRS MATERIALS TECHNIQUES LISTED BUILDING CONSENT AND PLANNING PERMISSION ) FOUND IT HARD TO COME TO ANY CONCLUSION OTHER THAN THAT THE LESSEE HAD BROUGHT ALL OF THIS ON HIMSELF THROUGH HIS ILL ADVISED FLOUTING OF THE LAW 4HE MAGISTRATES SEEMED TO THINK SO TOO )T WAS AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES BEFORE THEY RETURNED TO THE COURT WITH THEIR SENTENCES n QUITE A LONG TIME TO BE EXCHANGING SMALL TALK AND PLEASANTRIES WITH PEOPLE WHOSE CLIENT YOU HAVE JUST TAKEN TO COURT 4HE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT THEY REGARDED ANY UNAUTHORISED ALTERATIONS TO A 'RADE )) BUILDING AS MOST SERIOUS MATTERS AND HANDED DOWN FINES AS FOLLOWS 5NAUTHORISED WORKS 3ECTION s 2EMOVAL OF FIREPLACES AND CHIMNEY BREASTS a s )NSTALLATION OF BOILER AND BALANCED FLUE a s 2EMOVAL OF GLAZED ROOF AND REPLACING WITH FELT a s )NFILLING OF THE CARTWAY CONCRETE FLOOR AND WINDOW a s 2ENDERING THE OUTBUILDINGS AND INSTALLING DOUBLE GLAZING a s 2EPOINTING THE DOVECOTE a $AMAGE 3ECTION s 4AKING DOWN THE GABLE WALLS AND CAPPING THE REMAINS a s 2ENDERING THE GAZEBO a 4OTAL FINES a 4HE COUNCIL S FULL APPLICATION FOR COSTS WAS GRANTED a n AND PENCE )T IS TOO EARLY TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS ) AM STILL DISCUSSING REPAIRS WITH THE OWNER n INSOFAR AS THEY CAN BE EFFECTED 3OME OF THE DAMAGE IS BEYOND REPAIR AND IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE TO SPECULATE ON WHERE AND HOW THESE NEGOTIATIONS WILL LEAD -Y THOUGHTS ON THE PROSECUTION HOWEVER ARE CLEAR 7HEN ) FIRST SAW THE DAMAGE THAT HAD BEEN CAUSED MY REACTION HAD BEEN ONE OF DISBELIEF ) SIMPLY COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT MY ADVICE TO THE LESSEE ON WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO COMPREHENSIVELY IGNORED ) WANTED A RESULT AND A FINE THAT WOULD STICK (OWEVER ) HAD LITTLE IDEA AS TO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED #OUNSEL NEVER LOST SIGHT OF THE SERIOUS NATURE OF THE OFFENCES 7HEN ) WAS TEMPTED BY OUR IN HOUSE LEGAL ADVISERS TO ACCEPT LESSER PLEAS ON THE BASIS THAT WHAT WAS BEING OFFERED WAS A REALISTIC AND ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE HE WOULD HAVE NONE OF IT (E PRESSED THE DEFENCE VERY HARD AND THE END RESULT BORE HIS TACTICS OUT )F ) HAVE ANY REGRETS IT IS THAT WE ACCEPTED A LESSER CHARGE OF DAMAGE TO THE BEAUTIFUL GAZEBO "UT THE HARSH REALITIES OF NEGOTIATING ACCEPTABLE PLEAS AND SUSTAINING A PROSECUTION WERE PRESSING 4HE CASE HAD BEEN RUNNING FOR TWO YEARS THE NEW LESSEE WANTS TO PROGRESS HER BUSINESS PLANS AND ) STILL HAVE TO GET REPAIRS AGREED 4HE COSTS AROSE FROM FOUR CONFERENCES WITH COUNSEL INCLUDING A DAY S SITE VISIT AND THREE COURT APPEARANCES HOURS OF MY TIME HOURS OF THE SOLICITOR S TIME LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND EXPERT OPINION ON THE MORTARS AND RENDERS USED PHOTOGRAPHS AND OTHER INCIDENTALS !T TIMES THE PROSECUTION SEEMED LIKE A PROCESS OF ATTRITION BUT THE FINES OF a ARE A RECORD FOR ALTERATIONS AS OPPOSED TO DEMOLITIONS AND THE COSTS OF a ARE A RECORD TOO 4HE CASE WAS WELL PUBLICISED A WEEK LATER IN THE LOCAL EVENING NEWSPAPER WITH FRONT PAGE HEADLINES AND A COLOUR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEFENDANT ) WAS DISAPPOINTED AND SURPRISED THAT THE CASE DID NOT ATTRACT THE NATIONAL PUBLICITY ACCORDED TO 4HERESA 'ORMAN n ESPECIALLY SINCE THE DEFENDANT AND HIS COMPANY HAD ATTRACTED A GREAT DEAL OF COVERAGE FOR OTHER MATTERS SINCE THE CASE FIRST CAME TO MY ATTENTION (OWEVER ) HAD BEEN DETERMINED NOT TO GIVE ANY INFORMATION TO THE PRESS BEFOREHAND BECAUSE OF CONCERNS THAT THE DEFENCE COULD HAVE CLAIMED THAT SUCH MATERIAL COULD HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL TO A FAIR TRIAL .ONETHELESS ENJOYING A CELEBRATORY DRINK OVER THE RESULT IN THE PUB IT SEEMED WORTH IT AFTER ALL 4HE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF HIS EMPLOYER 3OUTH 3TAFFORDSHIRE $ISTRICT #OUNCIL 4HE CONSERVATORY WITH REPLACEMENT DOOR AND FANLIGHT AND ITS GLAZED ROOF REPLACED WITH ROOFING FELT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=