DPP & Planning Department Lay False Planning Enforcement Charges Against Family. Charges Withdrawn In Court.

By Alric Lindsay

Stephen Alburns Scott, Tanya Felicia Scott, and Cameron Merlin Scott appeared in the Summary Court today, July 21, 2026, to face a false charge wrongly made against them for “failure to comply with an enforcement notice,”  specifically, unauthorised land clearing carried out without the grant of planning permission.  Crown Counsel for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions admitted the error and withdrew the charge. The Chief Magistrate ordered DPP Crown Counsel to pay $250 for the error.

Acting on the Scott’s behalf, defence attorney Stacy-Ann Kelly explained the following to the Chief Magistrate:

This is one of those enforcement matters where an error has been made by the Department [of Planning]; the error is brought to their attention, nothing is done… the persons who are then charged are then having to incur costs to resolve an issue that really was created by the Department.

The defence attorney added that Tanya Scott wrote to the Department, in an email dated Wednesday, July 15, addressed to a Mr Haroon Pandohie, clearly setting out the error made by the Department.

In the meantime, the Scott family engaged a surveyor at their own expense to prove the discrepancy. Subsequently, a Department employee accepted that the error was the Department’s fault.

Given the error, the Chief Magistrate asked the defence attorney what the scope of the costs to be sought by the Scotts was.  The defence attorney noted that the Scotts would seek to recover the surveyor’s costs.

The defence attorney added that there was embarrassment caused to the Scott family by having their names wrongly listed on the court list.  This was an element of loss that could not readily be quantified.

Notwithstanding the presentation of the evidence by the defence attorney, DPP Crown Counsel representing the Department indicated to the court that she was just being handed the correspondence from the Department and would need time to confirm directly with the Department.  In the circumstances, the court adjourned briefly, for five minutes, before resuming.

When the matter resumed, DPP Crown Counsel  said she had spoken to a compliance officer at the Department of Planning, who confirmed that the Department had erred as to which parcel had been observed to have been cleared, and that it was not the Scotts’ parcel.  She concluded: “Your Honour, the Crown withdraws the charges.”

The Chief Magistrate acknowledged that DPP Crown Counsel withdrew the charges because of the Department’s error and ordered costs of $250 to be payable to the Scotts, to be paid within 30 days.