An hotelier who was fined for breaching fire regulations following a serious blaze has convinced the Court of Appeal that the charges he faced were ‘defective’ – but has nevertheless failed to overturn his convictions. The Court ruled that the flaws in the indictment were not so grave as to render it a nullity.
The hotelier and the company which owned the premises, of which he was the sole director, were each convicted of six offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 after a fire was started by a guest’s carelessly discarded cigarette end. There was no appeal against the company’s convictions.
The hotelier’s lawyers argued that the charges against him – which alleged that he had consented to or connived in the company’s breaches – did not disclose offences known to law and that there was no power to amend the indictment following the jury’s verdict. His convictions were therefore necessarily unsafe.
The Court accepted that the charges had been ‘mis-labelled’ and that the part of the Order under which the hotelier had been charged did not create a discrete, stand-alone, offence. However, the Court nevertheless ruled that the defective drafting of the indictment did not render it a nullity.
Although it was ‘less than ideal’ that the hotelier should remain convicted of mis-labelled offences, the Court noted that he had been ‘occasioned neither unfairness nor prejudice’ by the error. The hotelier’s other grounds of appeal, relating to the fairness of his trial, were also dismissed.