Derek Achong

Two rel­a­tives of Princes Town have par­tial­ly suc­ceed­ed in their ap­peal against be­ing con­vict­ed of fail­ing to abide by an or­der from the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning Di­vi­sion to de­mol­ish un­ap­proved con­struc­tion work to their prop­er­ty. 

Chan­dra and In­grid Silochan, of Craig­nish Vil­lage, Princes Town, scored the mi­nor le­gal vic­to­ry as their ap­peal was par­tial­ly up­held by Ap­pel­late Judges Mark Mo­hammed and Prakash Moo­sai, yes­ter­day morn­ing. 

Ac­cord­ing to the ev­i­dence in the case, in April 2002, the Silochans ap­plied to the di­vi­sion for plan­ning per­mis­sion to de­vel­op a sin­gle sto­ry home on their prop­er­ty in Champ Fleurs in­to mul­ti­ple apart­ments and were re­fused. 

The di­vi­sion be­gan in­ves­ti­gat­ing the prop­er­ty af­ter the re­ceived re­ports that con­struc­tion was con­tin­u­ing de­spite the lack of per­mis­sion. 

On No­vem­ber 21, 2005, the di­vi­sion’s de­vel­op­ment con­trol in­spec­tor Rick­ie Ce­de­no served the Silochans with an en­force­ment no­tice to de­mol­ish the un­ap­proved ad­di­tions. 

The di­vi­sion wait­ed three years and then chose to file en­force­ment pro­ceed­ings af­ter there was still no com­pli­ance. 

In ear­ly 2017, for­mer mag­is­trate and cur­rent High Court Judge Lisa Ram­sumair-Hinds found the Silochans guilty of the of­fence. 

The Silochans were fined $700 for the ini­tial breach when the en­force­ment no­tice took ef­fect on Jan­u­ary 17, 2006. 

As they had not com­plied with the or­der while the case was on­go­ing, they were al­so slapped with a fine of $815,200, which was cal­cu­lat­ed at $200 per day for 4,076 days be­tween 2006 and 2017. 

In the ap­peal the Silochan’s at­tor­neys claimed that the con­vic­tion for the ini­tial breach should be over­turned as it was stat­ue barred be­cause it was brought well over six months af­ter their ini­tial breach of the or­der. 

Moo­sai, who wrote the judg­ment, agreed that the of­fence for the ini­tial of­fence was time-barred. 

How­ev­er, he ruled that their con­vic­tion for the con­tin­u­ing el­e­ment of the of­fence be­tween 2006 and 2017 was le­git­i­mate due to the con­tin­ued non-com­pli­ance. 

Moo­sai al­so re­ject­ed the rel­a­tives com­plaints over the fail­ure of the then mag­is­trate to give suf­fi­cient rea­sons for her de­ci­sion in the case. 

“Her de­ci­sion was rea­son­ably in­tel­li­gi­ble to the ap­pel­lants, even though they con­sid­ered it to be er­ro­neous, and pro­vid­ed the ba­sis for mean­ing­ful ap­pel­late re­view of both con­vic­tion and sen­tence,” he said. 

Deal­ing with the duo’s com­plaints over the sever­i­ty of their sen­tence, Moo­sai not­ed that the sen­tences were prop­er­ly cal­cu­lat­ed. 

How­ev­er, he ques­tioned the mag­is­trate’s or­der that they should serve two years in prison with hard labour if they failed to pay the fine. 

“I am of the view in these cir­cum­stances, im­pris­on­ment with hard labour in the in­stance of de­fault is un­war­rant­ed, dis­pro­por­tion­ate and ex­ces­sive,” Moo­sai said, as she ad­just­ed the de­fault sen­tence to sim­ple im­pris­on­ment. 

As part of the judge­ment, Moo­sai gave the rel­a­tives 90 days in which to pay the fines. 

The Silochans were rep­re­sent­ed by Gilbert Pe­ter­son, SC, Ter­rance Bharath, and Vah­ni Se­u­nath while Nigel Pil­grim rep­re­sent­ed the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP).