‘I’m very unhappy’
For two weeks last year, the family’s ramshackle rural property was the subject of a jury trial at which they represented themselves against 25 charges they collectively faced.
The charges related mostly to unconsented building work and dwellings, and failures to comply with council abatement notices and notices to fix.
Married couple Dhruva and Bianca Reid and Dhruva’s parents, Jason and Bhadra, tried to convince the jury that they should be able to do what they wanted with their land and were causing no harm. However, they were convicted on 23 charges.
Without the assistance of the unknown benefactor, they were not in a financial position to pay the $138,000 fines.
At the resentencing in the Tauranga District Court, Dhruva Reid attempted to address the circumstances related to the missing fine payment, but Judge Reid said he was “not interested”.
“I don’t know whether it was ever a legitimate thing that you represented to the court on 24 September, I am completely uninterested in what’s been put before the court about the FMA allegedly intercepting the payment,” he said.
“I’m very unhappy, I have to say, that the court is in the position it is now …”
The Reids say they received what appeared to be a payment confirmation, but had not been able to “independently verify” it. They attributed the failure to something going wrong in the “banking or administrative process”; they had earlier told the court that the donor claimed the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) had something to do with the failed payment.
But Judge Reid did not accept these submissions.
“The payment wasn’t made, end of story,” he said.
He was left with the choice of substituting the fine with either community work or community detention.
The Reid family spent two weeks defending 25 charges related to unconsented dwellings and buildings on their rural Katikati property, at a jury trial last year.
Family’s health challenges
The Reids had told the court, before September’s sentencing and before the benefactor’s offer, that they could afford fines of only $1250 each.
“A level that is affordable for the defendants, and as they have offered, would be insufficient on its own to, in my judgment, deter others who might contemplate acting in a similar way, and insufficient to account for the overall gravity of the offending,” Judge Reid said.
Therefore, he had to weigh community work or community detention.
While presentence reports recommended community detention, Crown prosecutor Hannah Speight submitted that, in this case, community detention had only a small punitive element because the defendants lived and carried out their entire lives at their property.
“I agree with that assessment that, in this case, because of the need for deterrence, community work is to be preferred …” Judge Reid said.
However, he had to consider the health constraints of the family, with Dhruva Reid the only one without current health challenges.
Dhruva and Bianca are in their 40s, while Jason and Bhadra are superannuants.
A Department of Corrections officer advised that the presentence report writers had canvassed options and, in Katikati, there were community work options that wouldn’t require the family members to do work they weren’t physically able to do.
However, Bianca Reid had current health issues that made any form of community work unsuitable.
The judge fined each family member $1250, and sentenced Bianca Reid to six months’ community detention, with a curfew of 9pm to 7am.
Dhruva Reid was sentenced to 250 hours’ community work, Bhadra Reid was given 175 hours’ community work, and Jason Reid was given 225 hours’ community work.
A question over the ‘path to comply’
In addition to the resentencing, there were discussions about the enforcement orders and whether the Reids had been complying with them.
Their property is dotted with sheds, houses, children’s climbing frames and trampolines, a half-built American-style barn and a non-operational timber mill.
A large, half-built American-style barn did not have a building consent, and was the subject of charges of failing to comply with notices to fix.
The enforcement orders required them to disestablish five buildings by doing one of the following: removing or demolishing them, permanently removing the kitchen and sanitary facilities, or obtaining a consent.
A timeline of deadlines set out when each building had to be made compliant, and a council officer’s job sheet reported that not all of the deadlines had been met.
Plumbing for the bathrooms and kitchens in two of the dwellings had been disconnected, but items including sinks and toilets were still inside, albeit not in a functioning position.
The council did not consider this to be the “permanent” removal required.
The job sheet indicated that it didn’t appear the property would be compliant, with all non-compliant dwellings remedied or removed, by the end of June as ordered.
Bianca Reid explained to the court that there had been several setbacks in completing the work, including her health challenges and unexpected weather events.
She sought a six-month extension to the enforcement order deadline, but the judge said the timeframe imposed in September had already been “generous”, and had been made in consultation with the family and what they thought was achievable at the time.
“The order that was made by the court was significantly less onerous and was to be complied with over a significantly longer period of time than was originally sought by the Crown,” he said.
“However, the principal issue here is that the property still needs to be brought into compliance, and I am prepared to allow a short further extension to allow that to occur.”
He gave them a one-month extension.
The Reids say their primary issue is that the enforcement orders have “prevented” them from complying, because they’re not allowed to do new building work.
They say they want to build new, compliant dwellings for Bhadra and Jason before they remove the non-compliant ones in which they are currently living.
“The prevention is one of any further building work, because we have four individual parties to host on the property, we need legal shelters for them to occupy, and we are denied access to that …” Dhruva Reid said.
The judge declined to make changes to the enforcement order to allow for new buildings; he had earlier reminded them of the importance of compliance.
“If you end up breaching the enforcement, you could end up back here in the same position, facing further charges.
“What you must focus on is achieving compliance with the enforcement order and the requirements of the council so far as the notices to fix and other building act requirements are concerned.”
Speaking to NZME after the resentencing, Bianca and Dhruva Reid said they wanted certainty from the council about their “path to be able to comply”.
Bianca said they wanted to comply, but first wanted to know what the long-term options were for additional, permanent dwellings.
They had moved away from an earlier idea, which they spoke about after the first sentencing, to have “tiny houses” on the property. They said they had decided they were unsuitable.
“From what I can see, the only path at the moment is that it has to be a trailer or a bus,” Bianca said.
“So when [the council inspector] comes, you can just drive out and drive in, and you can show him it’s self-contained.”
She said they didn’t think that living in a bus was an option for Bhadra and Jason “for the rest of their lives”.
Western Bay of Plenty District Council general manager regulatory services Alison Curtis said any future development on the property would need to be considered through the appropriate consenting processes once the site was compliant.
“Council cannot pre‑empt or provide assurances about potential future development while the enforcement orders remain in place.”
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.