By Alric Lindsay
Andre Dacres appeared in the Summary Court today, February 12, 2025, to face three charges of failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice. All charges were withdrawn against him due to them being laid “out of time.”
The “out of time” explanation
Regarding the charges being laid by the prosecutiin out of time, this is covered under section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This states:
Limitation of time for proceedings for summary offences
78. Except where a longer time is specially allowed by law, no offence which is triable summarily shall be triable by a Summary Court unless the charge or complaint relating to it is laid within six months from the date on which evidence sufficient to justify proceedings came to the actual or constructive knowledge of a competent complainant…
The timeline for the charges and enforcement notices was outlined as follows:
| Charge | Description |
| First charge | |
| April 28, 2022 | Enforcement notice sent out |
| July 1, 2022 | Site inspection |
| January 10, 2023 | Charge filed |
| Second charge | |
| March 10, 2021 | Enforcement notice sent out |
| September 2021 | Follow-up inspection |
| July 25, 2022 | Charge filed |
| Third charge | |
| March 23, 2021 | Enforcement Notice sent out |
| September 28, 2021 | Site inspection |
| July 2022 | Charge filed |
In each of the above cases, the Chief Magistrate noted that the court would give a generous interpretation of the timeline for the filing of charges, commencing on the date of the site inspection.
Based on the timeline, each charge was filed “out of time” by the prosecution.
Waide DaCosta, attorney for Dacres, agreed with the Chief Magistrate’s interpretation.
In these circumstances where the prosecution did not disagree with the observations, the prosecution withdrew all charges.
Note to readers:
For planning enforcement matters, it is critical for charges to be laid within the timeline provided under section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In a case where the charges were laid “out of time” by the prosecution, it results in a waste of the court’s resources. It is also results in inconvenience to the landowner having to attend court.
