R v Major Sandhu [1997] JPL 853
The point in plain English: The listed-building offence considered by the Court was one of strict liability. The prosecution had to prove the prohibited works and their effect on the building’s special character, not that the defendant deliberately or knowingly broke the law.
What the Court of Appeal decided
Mr Sandhu was convicted over unauthorised works to Grade II listed Hainault Hall, including replacement windows and removal of historic internal features. The trial included extensive evidence that he had ignored professional warnings and chosen cheaper work.
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. Because the offence was one of strict liability, evidence about motive, knowledge and warnings which did not prove the elements of the offence was irrelevant. In this jury trial it was also seriously prejudicial and may have distracted from the real issue: whether the alterations affected the building’s character as a building of special architectural or historic interest.
What the case does not mean
State of mind may still matter to sentence and to other legal questions. Sandhu is not a licence to carry out works first and argue about knowledge later.
See Planning Geek’s guide to listed building enforcement and listed building consent.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.