15 November 2018

Resource Management: R. v. Lau & Mao

Augustine Lau’s two year’s imprisonment was upheld by the High Court for his multiple resource management and building offences committed over a three year period with some 26 non-conforming dwellings constructed on six properties around Auckland.  Rentals collected on these illegal dwellings were in the region of $240,400 a year.
The High Court was told of multiple breaches of the Resource Management Act, Building Act and Companies Act.  The worst breaches occurred at three sites: Ormiston Road (with eight dwellings constructed on a site approved for one only); Fairburn Road (where nine hundred cubic metres of earthworks were undertaken without consent, proper preparation or compaction utilising fill which included rubbish, debris and asbestos) and; Paremoremo Road (where the site contained nine dwellings with approval for one only).  Site occupancies were increased both by extending an existing dwelling and by shifting re-locatable buildings on site.  At Ormiston and Paremoremo, waste water disposal did not comply with local regulations, draining onto slopes above watercourses.  Council requisitions requiring Lau to remedy breaches were ignored.  Remediation and legal expenses are costing Auckland City ratepayers some one million dollars.
Whilst stating a longer sentence could be justified, Justice Whata dismissed appeals by both Lau and the Crown over the adequacy of sentence.  In mitigation, Lau said he suffered from ADHD.  There was medical evidence this has manifested itself in ongoing conflict with authority figures throughout his life.
Appeal against sentence by Jiawen Mao was also dismissed. She had been fined $64,000 and ordered to pay $155,000 reparations.  This arose from her ownership of and legal control of the Ormiston Road and Fairburn Road properties.  Justice Whata said she had a secondary role in the offending.  There was evidence of her acquiescence in the actions of Lau, blindly signing documents put in front of her and being coached by Lau as to evidence she should give in court.
R. v. Lau & Mao – High Court (15.11.18)
18.226