Caravan Sites Act 1968–Appeal from justices’ dismissal of information alleging deprivation of caravan dweller’s right to electricity–Right dependent on site being a ‘protected site’–Site protected although landowner not eligible for a site licence–Appeal allowed and case remitted to justices
This was an
appeal, by way of case stated by justices sitting at Newquay, by William David
Hooper, clerk to the borough of Restormel, against the justices’ dismissal on
February 22 1977 of an information preferred by him against Leslie George
Eaglestone alleging that he, being the owner of land at Trebarber Farm, St
Columb Minor, Newquay, did, with intent, cause Orton Swandley, the occupier of
a caravan on a protected site, to suffer the loss of electricity supply.
Michael
Burrell (instructed by Sharpe, Pritchard & Co, agents for the solicitor to
the borough of Restormel) appeared for the appellant; F H S Gilbert (instructed
by Tozers, of Dawlish) represented the respondent.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY CJ said that the information, preferred under section
3(1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, alleged that the respondent had cut off the
electricity to the occupant of a caravan on his land. The sole question was
whether the justices were right in accepting a defence submission that the site
was not protected within the meaning of the Act.
The Act
defined a protected site as ‘any land in respect of which a site licence is
required under Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act of
1960. . . .’ Turning to the 1960 Act one
found that the occupier of any land used for caravans must be the holder of a
site licence. The effect of that was that land could not be used for a caravan
site without a site licence. A local authority could issue a site licence if,
and only if, an applicant had the benefit of permission to use the site for
caravans.
In the present
case the owner could not get a site licence because of the unauthorised
presence of caravans on the land. But he could not argue that because he could
not get a site licence the land was not a ‘protected site.’ A site licence was required in respect
of the land and therefore it was protected within the Caravan Sites Act. The
case should go back to the justices for them to continue the hearing.
CUMMING-BRUCE
LJ and PARK J agreed.
Appeal
allowed with costs. Case remitted to the justices for them to continue the
hearing.
