The council has dropped its prosecution of a developer who ripped green tiles off his Brighton pub.
Charlie Southall was told he had to replace or restore the tiles on the Montreal Arms, which he hired a team to take off in March 2022.
Brighton and Hove City Council launched a prosecution last year, alleging he had breached the enforcement notice by not putting them back.
But after a planning inspector ruled the council had acted unreasonably while considering an application to amend conditions imposed on how they should be restored in November, Judge Mark van der Zwart ordered the council to review its decision to prosecute.
Today, the council’s barrister Peter Savil told him the prosecution was being withdrawn as it was no longer considered to be in the public interest.
However, he said the council would resist an application from Southall to pay his costs on the grounds the whole prosecution was an abuse of process, arguing it does not accept or concede. A hearing has been scheduled for that matter to be decided.
Judge van der Zwart said: “I’m concerned the ability of the local authority to issue fresh proceedings if they so wish.
“My preference having considered the submissions on both sides is that Mr Southall in his personal capacity as a director should in fact be arraigned and he will enter not guilty pleas. He will be found not guilty.
“That would give him a very significant protection in the future against any resurrection of these charges.”
Mr Southall was then formally arraigned with the charge of failing to comply with the enforcement notice at the hearing at Lewes Crown Court this morning, both personally and on behalf of his company Dragonfly Architectural Services.
He pleaded not guilty to both, the crown entered no evidence, and Judge van der Zwart recorded not guilty verdicts.
At a hearing last month, Judge van der Zwart asked the council to consider four questions when reviewing its decision to prosecute.
He said: “I want to know the extent to which, if at all, the planning authority and prosecuting authority were influenced in the issuing of an enforcement notice and the decision to prosecute for failure to comply with it by communications from members of the public and others.
“The extent to which, if at all, Charlie Southall was liaising with the local authority about the structural issues and the tiles before the enforcement notice was issued and the decision to prosecute for failure to comply with it.
“Because part of Charlie Southall’s case is the impact on his health, the extent to which, if at all, the issues that he and Dragonfly were raising with the planning authority about the structural issues and the tiles were being publicised in response to the community concerns.
“It’s plain, on sight of the materials I have had, there was strong feelings about what was happening with this cherished building.
“On the materials I have seen, Charlie Southall was endeavouring to explain to the planning authority why the materials the tiles couldn’t be put straight back on.
“At present I don’t know the extent to which the explanations he was generating were being shared with the members of the community who had legitimate concerns to allay their concerns or explain what was happening.
“I want to know the extent to which if at all that communication between the planning authority and the public impacted Charlie Southall’s health.
“If it had any impact on his decision to flee his home for fear of his safety.
“I make no criticism of the media who have an important part to play in publicising matters of public interest and even more important role in reporting what happens in this court.
“I have seen materials, emails between the planning authority and members of the press about what should be publicised and what couldn’t be said.
“The extent to which, if at all, the planning authority and prosecuting authority were liaising with the media about what the public should be told.
“That too may or may not have had or have no impact on the consideration of whether the continuation of these proceedings are an abuse of process of this court.
“I stress I make no criticism of the media.”
Today, Mr Savil said the council had reviewed the case in light of these four specific questions. He said: “The review has taken place.
“The council’s position is that it does not accept of concede that these proceedings are an abuse of process of the court and neither accepts or concedes that any of the matters raised constitutes grounds for the stay of the proceedings, either individually or cumulatively.
“However the planning inspectorate’s decision has significantly impacted proceedings so that it’s now the view of the council it’s no longer in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.”
Mr Southall asked to read a brief statement to the court, which was agreed. He said: “The prosecution is being abandoned at the point where it was being required to address the court’s concerns, not simply because of a decision that had been available since November.
“You asked clear questions about public and political influence and what was published in a charged local environment.
“The prosecution has provided no responses to those concerns and withdrawn at the deadline.”
He said the situation was now “left in limbo” with continuing wrangles with the council causing a “planning paralysis”.
He said: “My family and I have suffered harassment and abuse because of a misleading narrative.
“Sussex Police has been involved and my fear today is that unless the conclusion of the case is imparted accurately, public opinion following this is likely to be along the lines of the villain wriggling free, gettingh away with things, which seems to be the narrative preferred by the local press.”
He invited the judge to make further comments, but Judge van der Zwart declined, saying these issues would be resolved at the costs hearing.
Well well well theres a suprise.
Sounds like the council properly messed this up.
Literally, this really should not have struggled with the process with a clearly bad faith director.
Man rips tiles off, man refused to put them back on, man makes multiple planning applications to stop enforcement actions then man moans that people think he’s not a straight shooter… Pull the other one.
Put the tiles back on and stop being an ar$e
Mans allowed to remove tiles council trys to stop it, man gets surveyor in and they agree council refuse to look, man gets government too look into it they agree council back ou. Is that better ?
Nice try Southall but you’ll get no sympathy and nobody thinks this is anything but a sham that you’ve gotten away with it
Nice try southall jesus get over yourself. Not everyone on here agrees with the crap that gets written or with the dodgy council
The arrogance and ignorance is outstanding. Destroy something that’s been there twice as long as you have been on the planet, all for a couple of £ because you some how believe your some sort of property developer… Stop watching homes under the hammer and sort your life out Charlie.
Game the system and think people are thick enough to believe you, as if
Explain to me whats been destroyed ?
The distinctive green tiles at the Montreal Arms in Brighton are known as green faize tiles, made using lead-based dyes and crafted by hand, and are a Listed feature. Each tile is handmade, with the lead-based glaze causing them to reflect different colours depending on the angle of sunlight. These historic tiles date back to around 1927, following a merger between the Portsmouth United brewery and Brighton’s Rock brewery.
These were unlawfully destroyed by Charlie Southall.
Replace the tiles that were already broken jesus christ you really are clueless
It’s already been determined that this is a fact. We can see this easily, because they were physically stripped from building. Even in a state of disrepair, you cannot simply destroy what’s left.
Not in the publics interest what bollox
I find it difficult to put into words my dislike for the incompetence of Brighton Council. Whether it is the rotting seafront, the wasted thousands of pounds on trees, the dodgy education consultations, the closure of libraries and schools. I feel like they only represent a small section of our society and actively dislike the rest of us.
Mans allowed to remove tiles council trys to stop it, man gets surveyor in and they agree council refuse to look, man gets government too look into it they agree council back ou. Is that better ?
Yep spot on
Council are as bad as the so called Journalists that have reported on this. Both as courupt as each other
Congratulations, you’ve won the official low IQ comment of the week award.
Cheers dave
Council had the means to behave properly and not include the media with selective details, they chose otherwise to the cost of the taxpayers, not themselves.
Council had the means to behave properly and not supply the media with selective details, they chose otherwise to the cost of the taxpayers, not themselves.
Yep, they are corrrupt, inept and out of their depths in everything that they do.
It’s worth remembering that some of the strongest criticism here – including from Benjamin – was made long before the court had reached any decision.
Over the past few years, Benjamin has repeatedly portrayed Charlie as acting in bad faith and framed the issue as if guilt were already established. But as this hearing at Lewes Crown Court showed, the prosecution has now been withdrawn and not guilty verdicts have been formally recorded. That matters.
Whatever people think about the tiles or the planning wrangles, it’s not helpful to present assumptions as facts or to shape public debate as though the outcome is predetermined. The judge specifically raised concerns about influence, communication and process — serious issues that deserved scrutiny before anyone rushed to judgment.
Criticism of decisions is fair. But presuming wrongdoing before the courts have ruled risks misleading readers and fuelling exactly the kind of charged atmosphere the judge referred to.
Now that the case has concluded with not guilty verdicts, it would be reasonable for those who were most vocal in condemning Charlie to at least acknowledge that outcome and reflect on how the narrative was presented.
Did Charlie write that?
James, nobody is disputing that not guilty verdicts were formally recorded. But that followed the council withdrawing the prosecution and the Crown offering no evidence. There was no trial on the facts.
As a reminder, the planning inspector had already upheld the enforcement notice and confirmed the removal of the tiles caused harm to a locally listed heritage asset. That planning position has not been overturned.
It’s right that the court scrutinised whether the prosecution process was robust and insulated from external influence. Due process matters. But a procedural decision not to continue a prosecution is not the same as a finding that the underlying breach did not occur.
Most residents’ concern has always been straightforward: a distinctive heritage feature dating from 1927 was removed without permission and has not yet been reinstated. That issue remains unresolved regardless of the outcome in court.
Yep ben and jo have a lot in common very similar, prehaps too similar
A firm understanding of what a listed feature is, and the restrictions it imposes, including not destroying the aforementioned feature, because that’s not unique knowledge; most people are aware of this fact in law.
This architectural vandal has just about got away with it. I wouldn’t let him build with Lego bricks. He deserves every bit of criticism that has been levelled at him. Absolutely no sympathy for this arrogant individual.
Benjamin
You used the comment sections of local news outlets to frame a narrative of bad faith and guilt before any legal determination was made. Examples of persistent criticism include:
Brighton and Hove News
Framing as Dishonest: repeatedly characterized Southall as a “clearly bad faith director” and someone who is “self-serving, dishonourable, and willing to litigate-first”.
Prejudging Guilt: argued that Southall’s claims would “collapse under their own weight” and that residents were “quite rightly annoyed at him for his hubris and keen to see karmic justice”.
Dismissing Legal Outcomes: Even after the case was dropped, Benjamin maintained that the withdrawal did not “mean there was no basis for criticism” and continued to judge Southall’s conduct based on several years of “documented actions”.
Impact on the Crown Court Case
At Lewes Crown Court, the influence of this persistent negative media and public narrative became a legal issue:
Judge’s Concerns: Judge Mark van der Zwart raised serious concerns regarding “process, influence and communication” within the highly charged local atmosphere.
Public Interest: Following the judge’s order for the council to review its decision, the prosecution was formally abandoned. The council’s barrister stated it was no longer in the public interest to proceed, partly due to the “procedural grounds” and the inconsistent environment the council had allowed to develop.
Legal Outcome: Because no evidence was offered by the prosecution, not guilty verdicts were officially recorded for Southall.
Southall has since argued that this “ongoing legal dispute” and the associated personal attacks directly led to a massive reduction in the property’s value.
Incorrect. You have failed to account for the years of bad faith acting, disregard for listing building statuses, and attempts to avoid accountability over a two year period, which have had several determinations against Charlie Southall. My stance comes from actions before this, and is simply strengthened by his recent quotes and the determination here, despite the case being dropped on advice, rather than it being lost.
These reported and documented actions, along with his damage of a listed building will have contributed to the loss of value more than any perceived characterisation of the questionably moral actions of Charlie. It is a quote that further demonstrates the bad faith of Charlie, in my opinion.
Furthermore, if the process was followed correctly, this latest legal issue regarding Charlie and this building, of which there are several, would have likely continued. That is by no means an absolution on his actions, nor does it negate the past several years of bad faith acting conducted by Charlie.
This is not a one-off event, which I need to impress upon your LLM. It is a pattern of behaviour, well documented and reported on beyond recent articles.
Benjamin,
It’s important to clarify that AI was used only as a tool to compile and summarise publicly available information regarding the history of disputes and allegations involving Charlie Southall. The system did not create new claims, introduce undisclosed material, or independently pursue any action. It organised information that had already been reported or documented.
Any decision to use, submit, or rely on that compiled material — particularly in a legal or formal context — rests entirely with the individual who chose to do so. AI tools do not initiate proceedings, influence courts independently, or act with intent; responsibility for how information is presented and applied remains with the human party involved.
If there were consequences arising from how that compiled history was used, accountability would sit with the person who elected to rely on and advance it, not with the tool that assisted in organising the information.
It’s also worth emphasising that legal outcomes are determined by courts based on admissible evidence and procedure, not by the mere existence of compiled summaries.
I’ve no objection to AI being used to organise material; it can be a helpful drafting tool. However, it can narrow focus to what it’s prompted with and flatten context. But, we’ll save AI epistemology for another day! My position has never rested solely on this prosecution, but on a documented pattern over several years. If you believe that pattern does not warrant criticism, which specific planning determination or listed building issue do you dispute?
Replace the tiles, Charlie. It’s not too late to do the right thing.