Cheshire Village Rocked by Conifer Scandal

The tranquility of a tiny Cheshire village has been shattered by a row over conifer hedging.

Thomas Jones thought he was doing the village a service by cutting back the unkempt hedgerow that had been left to grow uncontrollably. However, his neighbour, who owned the hedge, decided to repay his act of benevolence by reporting his actions to the police.

Jones, 46, of Station Road, Lea by Backford, Chester, begrudgingly admitted an offence of criminal damage when he appeared recently at Chester Magistrates' Court.

Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal damage below £5,000 is a summary offence, with a maximum sentence of 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4. We have previously written a guide to the offence of criminal damage, which some readers may find of interest.

Prosecutor Valeriya Tonkinson told the court that the owner of the hedge had returned home on Thursday, 10th October 2024, to find Jones and his partner cutting back the offending piece of hedgerow.

When the owner challenged Jones, she was told that she never cut the hedge and "people need to get past".

The court heard that the owner of the hedge shortly intends to sell her property.

Jones attended court with the intention of denying the offence, on the basis that his actions had been "in the public interest". However, after a quick chat with the duty solicitor, he reluctantly accepted that he had been in the wrong.

Stevie Bate, mitigating, said: "He incorrectly thought he was doing the public a favour in cutting back the trees as they were on a bend and were hard for people to get past.

"But he does accept that he was not in the right to cut the trees down and was legally wrong."

Ms Bate added that the farm labourer had refused to accept a police caution, which is why the matter had ended up in court.

Jane Davies, Presiding Justice, told Jones: "There is a process and you didn't follow it, which you now know."

Jones was handed a 6-month conditional discharge.

He was also ordered to pay £100 in compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £26 surcharge.

So what would have been the correct procedure?

Well, had the hedge been encroaching into Jones' property he would have been absolutely in his rights to trim it back to the boundary. In those circumstances the cuttings would still belong to the owner of the hedge, so they should be offered back to them before any attempts at disposal.

As it goes, the hedge was encroaching onto the public highway adjacent to the owner's property. In those circumstances the correct approach would have been to report that matter to the local authority. The local authority has various statutory powers, including those under section 154(1) of the Highways Act 1980, to require the owner to undertake remedial work.

And what do I think of this particular case?

Well, I'm sure it was very important to the owner of the hedge. Even if it was a completely unnecessary waste of everyone else's time.