Key Takeaways
- The Reid family was convicted on 23 of 25 charges relating to unconsented building work and failure to comply with council notices.
- They claimed an anonymous benefactor had attempted to pay the $138,000 fine, but the payment never arrived; the judge dismissed this explanation.
- Because of the family’s limited finances and health constraints, the court imposed modest fines ($1,250 each) combined with community work or detention.
- Bianca Reid, who suffers health issues, received six months’ community detention with a curfew; the other three members were sentenced to community work hours ranging from 175 to 250.
- Enforcement orders required the removal or consenting of several non‑compliant structures; the family sought a six‑month extension but was granted only one month.
- The Reids argued that the orders prevented them from building new, compliant dwellings for elderly parents, but the judge refused to alter the orders, stressing the need for compliance before any further building.
- The Western Bay of Plenty District Council stated that any future development must follow standard consent processes once the site is compliant, offering no assurances while enforcement orders remain.
Trial and Conviction
For two weeks last year the Reid family’s ramshackle rural property in Katikati became the centre of a jury trial in which they represented themselves against 25 charges. The allegations centred on unconsented building work, unlawful dwellings, and repeated failures to heed council abatement notices and notices to fix. Married couple Dhruva and Bianca Reid, together with Dhruva’s parents Jason and Bhadra, argued that they should be free to use their land as they wished and that their activities caused no harm. Despite their self‑representation, the jury returned guilty verdicts on 23 of the 25 charges, leaving only two counts acquitted.
Financial Situation and the Missing Payment
Following the convictions, the court imposed fines totalling $138,000. The Reid family told the court they could afford only $1,250 each, a figure they deemed manageable given their limited means. Before sentencing they claimed an anonymous benefactor had attempted to settle the fine, producing what appeared to be a payment confirmation. They said they could not independently verify the transaction and blamed a fault in the banking or administrative process, even suggesting the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) had interfered with the payment. The judge rejected these explanations outright, stating, “The payment wasn’t made, end of story,” and expressed his unhappiness with the situation.
Judge’s Displeasure and Sentencing Options
Judge Reid remarked that he was “very unhappy” that the court was left to resolve the fine issue. He indicated he had no interest in the family’s assertions about the FMA or the alleged payment attempt. With the fine unpaid, the judge faced a choice: substitute the monetary penalty with either community work or community detention. He noted that while presentence reports favoured community detention, the Crown argued that detention would have little punitive value because the family lived and worked entirely on the property. Consequently, he leaned toward community work as the preferable option, provided it could accommodate the family’s health limitations.
Health Challenges and Individual Sentences
The Reid family’s health profile played a decisive role in shaping the sentence. Dhruva and Bianca are in their 40s, while Jason and Bhadra are superannuants. Bianca Reid suffers from current health issues that render any form of community work unsuitable. Dhruva Reid, the only family member without ongoing health challenges, was deemed able to undertake labour. The judge fined each member $1,250, then sentenced Bianca to six months’ community detention with a curfew from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. Dhruva received 250 hours of community work, Bhadra 175 hours, and Jason 225 hours. These penalties aimed to balance accountability with the family’s physical constraints.
Enforcement Orders and Compliance Efforts
Beyond the resentencing, the court examined whether the Reids had complied with existing enforcement orders relating to the non‑consented structures on their land. The property features numerous sheds, houses, children’s climbing frames, trampolines, a half‑built American‑style barn, and a non‑operational timber mill. The barn, lacking a building consent, was a focal point of charges for failing to comply with notices to fix. The orders required the family to either remove or demolish five buildings, permanently strip kitchens and sanitary facilities, or obtain proper consents. A council job sheet indicated that several deadlines had not been met; while plumbing had been disconnected, fixtures such as sinks and toilets remained inside the dwellings, which the council did not regard as permanent removal.
Extension Granted and Ongoing Obstacles
Bianca Reid explained to the court that health setbacks and adverse weather had hindered progress on the required work. She requested a six‑month extension to the enforcement‑order deadline, arguing that more time was necessary. The judge characterised the original September deadline as already generous, having been set in consultation with the family about what they believed achievable. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that compliance remained outstanding and granted a one‑month extension, emphasizing that the family must focus on meeting the current order rather than seeking further delays.
Desire to Build New, Compliant Dwellings
The Reid family contended that the enforcement orders effectively barred them from undertaking any new building work, which they argued was essential to provide legal shelter for all four occupants while they phased out the non‑compliant structures. Dhruva Reid stated that they needed to construct new, consented dwellings for Jason and Bhadra before removing the existing ones in which they currently live. The judge, however, declined to amend the orders to allow new construction, reminding the family that any breach could lead to renewed charges. He urged them to prioritize achieving compliance with the existing notices and building‑act requirements before contemplating further development.
Council’s Position and Final Outlook
After the resentencing, Western Bay of Plenty District Council general manager Alison Curtis clarified that any future development on the property would need to undergo the standard consent process once the site attained compliance. She stressed that the council could not pre‑empt or guarantee approvals for additional buildings while the enforcement orders remained active. The Reids expressed a desire for certainty from the council regarding a viable long‑term path to compliance, mentioning that they had abandoned the idea of tiny houses and now considered a self‑contained trailer or bus as a temporary solution—though they doubted such arrangements would be suitable for their elderly parents indefinitely. The case underscores the tension between property owners’ aspirations for autonomy and the regulatory imperative to ensure safe, consented construction.