Elderly Property Owners Face Planning Enforcement Charges In Summary Court

By Alric Lindsay

Two elderly property owners faced separate planning enforcement prosecutions in the Summary Court today, October 27, 2026, raising arguments of missing service papers, grandfathered additions, and complex structural demolitions.

In the first matter, Stephen J. Bodden faced the charge alleging a failure to comply with an enforcement notice issued under section 18 of the Development and Planning Act. His daughter and co-defendant, Stephanie Elizabeth Bodden, was notably absent from the courtroom dock when the case was called.

Defence counsel Stacy-Ann Kelly offered a swift explanation to the bench, clarifying that Ms. Bodden was unavailable to attend the morning session due to the pressing demands of her job in the oncology department at the hospital.

Magistrate McFarlane firmly rejected the explanation, after hearing from Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that Ms. Bodden has already failed to appear for several prior stages of the proceedings.  In a series of pointed comments from the bench, the Magistrate emphasized that the court strictly demands a defendant’s physical presence, making it clear to the gallery that employment obligations or potential impacts on a person’s job provide absolutely no excuse for skipping a mandatory court date.

Turning to the core of the defence, Attorney Kelly argued that the elder Mr. Bodden, who pleaded “not guilty” from the dock, never physically received  the initial April 2025 planning enforcement notice. Furthermore, the defence maintained that the structural modifications targeted by the Planning Department are legally protected under historical exemption clauses, asserting that the construction was done in 2021 and “grandfathered in.”

Seeking a remedy to fix the alleged breach, the defence requested further time to address the matter. Noting that a prior warrant had already been stayed for Ms. Bodden, Magistrate McFarlane ordered both defendants to return to court on December 8, 2026.

Moments later, a second elderly resident, Stanwyck Darnel Myles, appeared in court utilizing a walking stick to answer an identical enforcement charge. Attorney Kelly, also representing Myles, raised an objection, stating that although the law states that the notice may be sent by registered mail, there are circumstances where the letter goes unclaimed, and it is returned to sender.  Attorney Kelly indicated that this is what occurred in this instance and, as such, Myles was never served.

Turning to the status of the property, Attorney Kelly explained to the court that significant progress has been made toward full compliance, though the building’s structural demolition must be handled in distinct, careful stages.

Notwithstanding the explanations, DPP Crown Counsel noted that the matter was reviewed by a senior DPP person on October 15 and the decision was taken to proceed with the prosecution for the enforcement action against Myles.

After hearing from the parties, Magistrate McFarlane ordered that the parties return to court on January 12, 2027.