Appeal On Building Permit Conviction

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31224, 23 November 1966, Page 14

Appeal On Building Permit Conviction

A Hungarian who conducted his own case was successful in an appeal to the Supreme Court yesterday against conviction on a charge relating to the conversion of a house into two flats without a building permit. The appellant, Charles Emery Louis Field, a radio deal-

er, advanced a plea of previous acquittal as the basis of his appeal. The Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) did not uphold the plea, but he allowed the appeal in that evidence against Field did not relate to the date in the charge. His Honour refused an application by Mr A. Hearn, for the Christchurch City Council, to amend the date. “I do that as a matter of broad justice, having regard that the appellant is a comparative newcomer to this country, and has chosen to appear on his own behalf,” his Honour said.

Field, who appealed by way of a case stated, told his Honour that the City Council had flrst charged him with “causing the erection of a building” on December 5, 1964, without a permit, of which he had been acquitted, having argued that his mother had contracted with a builder for the alterations, and he had merely been her interpreter. The City Council had then charged him with “being concerned in the erection of a building” on January 21, 1965, of which a magistrate had convicted him, and against which he appealed. Both charges had been laid under the same sub-section of the city by-laws, said Field, and the legal ingredients in each case were the same, he submitted. “Different Ingredients” Mr Hearn argued that even on the most cursory view, the two charges were quite different in their legal ingredients, and that the plea of previous acquittal was not therefore available to Field. Oh the flrst charge, “causing the erection of a building” on December 5,1964, the prosecution would have to show Field’s active participation, which evidence was lacking, said Mr. Hearn. But on the second charge, “being concerned in the erection of a building” on January 21, 1965, there was evidence brought that Field had been concerned in the work done.

On January 21, said Mr Hearn, Field had actually called at the City Council building inspector’s office to complain that the work of converting the house into flats was not being done properly. When the inspector went to the house, he found no permit had been obtained, and Field was sent a letter telling him that any work done thereafter would be an offence under the by-law. Questioned by his Honour, Mr Hearn conceded that the second charge against Field would have been better worded “on January 21, and days thereafter,” and asked that such an amendment be made. Judge’s Decision

His Honour, after saying he would treat the appeal as a general appeal, exercised his discretion to refuse the amendment. “I don't think the appellant should stand convicted of an offence on January 21 on events that took place after that date,” he said.

Of the plea of previous acquittal, his Honour said it was not necessary to decide the point, but he thought Mr Hearn was probably right. His Honour refused Field’s application for costs against the City Council, but remitted his Supreme Court hearing fee.