Jurors were provided with stacks of booklets that didn’t show the sort of crime scene they might have expected when they answered their summons.

No drugs, no violence, no forensics.

Instead, the booklets showed what one might describe as a commune, made up of at least 16 buildings that were, for the most part, unconsented.

The Reids had not only elected trial-by-jury, but chose to represent themselves instead of instructing lawyers.

Jason and Bhadra, superannuants who were once married but are now estranged, for the most part took a back seat in the defence case.

Their son Dhruva and daughter-in-law Bianca led the charge, grappling with the task of leading evidence and cross-examining Crown witnesses.

Differences of opinion seemed evident when Bianca would be mid-question and Dhruva would whisper suggestions, as she swatted him away.

Some days, the Reids were joined by a “McKenzie friend”, who wasn’t allowed to address the judge or jury, but spent his time furiously writing notes. On all days, a picture of a Vedic deity oversaw the proceedings from their desk.

They brought their own filtered water and a waft of essential oils as they entered courtroom three of the Tauranga District Court each day to defend the 25 charges they collectively faced, mostly related to unconsented building work and dwellings, and failures to comply with council abatement notices and notices to fix.

Their position is best summed up in a letter they sent to the Western Bay of Plenty District Council in February 2021, some four years before they found themselves arraigned in the dock.

Signed by all four, it stated they accepted only the authority of God, and explained their family’s size had “increased considerably”.

“The need for further building, which we see as our God-given right, has become a necessity.

“As it affects only ourselves, we consider it inappropriate for others to meddle in the process. It is difficult enough for us to build within our meagre means, and as such, we consider it justified that we proceed accordingly.”

Despite the assertions, at the end of two weeks, they were found guilty on most of the charges. The two women were acquitted on some charges related to ongoing building work, but by and large, their case was lost.

‘It grew without a plan,’ Reid women say

After the verdicts, Bhadra and Bianca Reid agreed to meet with the Herald, with Bianca sharing that her disappointment felt akin to having studied for an exam, only to fail.

Bhadra and Jason struggled to afford the property and wanted their children to be able to “live simply” on the land for as long as they wanted, growing their own food and developing their spiritual lives.

The eventual development of the rural property “grew without a plan”, evolving to suit their children and the other families they took in.

Bhadra’s view is the Resource Management Act and District Plan are too rigid to allow for such a lifestyle, and the consent process too expensive, but it’s a lifestyle she maintains is a worthy one.

That being said, if she could turn back the clock, she might have done things differently.

She regrets, for example, blocking her door during a search warrant, yelling “Narasinghadev!” at officers attempting to enter.

She explains it’s a word of “protection” and comes from her ancient Indian faith, a bit like saying, “Hallelujah”.

She wonders how she came to think it was okay to break laws, but recalls a childhood with a mother who battled authorities for the right to homeschool her children, followed by a young adulthood during the 1960s hippy movement.

While none of this caused her to “consciously” break laws, she considers she may have developed a subconscious distrust of authorities.

Bianca’s upbringing in rule-abiding Germany stands in contrast, but perhaps explains her views on what she sees as a lack of due process by the council.

When asked if the legal battle has been worth it, Bianca reflects the stakes were high and she’s not sure if the battle is over.

They didn’t want to just roll over, choosing to test their defence given their lifestyle was on the line, not to mention the homes they allowed families to live in.

“It wasn’t just a matter of, ‘oh, your deck is 50cm too wide’… for us, it would mean a whole change in the way we’ve been putting our roots down, with the council knowing about this for so long,” Bianca said.

“Are we going to just drop it and say to these two families, ‘sorry guys, you’ve got to go now and find something’? It’s a tricky one.”

Dhruva Reid ‘gave himself a consent’

Jason and Bhadra purchased the land in the 1990s.

Up until the wheels of justice began turning, there had been seemingly limited interactions between the council and the Reids.

A council visit in 2011 and letter showed “it is apparent that a large number of sheds and dwellings have been or are in the process of being constructed”.

Fast-forward to 2018, and the council came back and inspected a “large American-style barn” that was under construction.

Building inspector Case Verkerk met Dhruva and asked if there was consent for the building.

Dhruva responded to the effect that “he’d issued himself” a consent.

When Dhruva got the chance to cross-examine Verkerk during the trial, he began his questions with, “Remember me?”

The question posed by the clearly memorable Dhruva seemed to amuse Verkerk and the courtroom.

Verkerk recalled their conversation as “not unfriendly” and even Judge Kelvin Reid (no relation) may have smirked when Dhruva repeated a statement he’d made during the building inspector’s visit: “My parents didn’t need a consent to make me”.

While Dhruva may have, at times, asked seemingly impertinent questions, there appeared no malice in his approach.

Indeed, as the trial progressed, the Reids’ dealings with the judge, witnesses, prosecutors and their amicus lawyers were polite; even friendly.

During the trial, prosecutor Ben Smith had a persistent dry cough he couldn’t quite shake. Dhruva was heard, at the end of a long day, sharing a recipe for a herbal remedy Smith could try.

Can’t ‘pick and choose’ over the law, says Crown

The large barn Dhruva “gave himself a consent” for was referred to as “Building 13″ during the trial, and the jury heard the council had said it either needed to come down, or have a certificate of acceptance.

Initially, correspondence signed by Bhadra seemed to suggest they planned to apply for the certificate. However, nothing came of it.

And so, four years after the Reids effectively asked the council to leave them be, they spent two weeks defending their alleged use of more than one dwelling on their rural-zoned land, a building containing what the Crown said was a commercial kitchen, used to operate Dhruva and Bianca’s festival catering business, and the half-built American barn.

Prosecutor Hannah Speight said, in opening the Crown’s case, there were clear rules set out in the District Plan and the Resource Management Act.

“We cannot pick and choose which laws we follow and which we don’t,” she told the jury.

The District Plan allowed for one dwelling as a “permitted activity” and the ability to get consent for a second “minor dwelling”.

An aerial photo showed 16 labelled buildings but not all were the subject of charges. There were also a number of lean-tos and shipping containers.

Only one dwelling had a consent.

Six buildings were classed as dwellings, meaning they had a bathroom/toilet, a place to sleep and a kitchen or kitchenette. They were the buildings labelled 1, 2, 12, 14, 15 and 16.

Searches, compliance officers and ‘enslavement’

In December 2021, compliance officer Mark Keaney turned up at the Reids to investigate a complaint about a relocated building.

Body camera footage captured him speaking to Dhruva at the gate and asking his name.

Dhruva responds that he “goes by many names” and “to which name do you refer?”

Keaney: “Just your name.”

The conversation continued and Jason joined them.

There were references to Keaney trying to “enslave” them, with the compliance officer responding to the effect that he was “not trying to enslave anyone”, he just wanted to look around.

Jason says they don’t have a “contract” with the council, and wants Keaney to read the letter they sent nine months earlier (where they questioned the council’s jurisdiction and asked to be left alone).

Keaney snaps a few photos from near the gate and leaves.

From that interaction, Dhruva was charged with not providing his name to an enforcement officer, and he and Jason were charged with hindering an enforcement officer. Both were found guilty of those charges.

In pre-trial hearings, the Reids argued the compliance officer should have read their letter and done a thorough search of their council file before turning up. Then he would have been on notice that he was likely to find an RMA breach, and would have needed a court-issued search warrant.

But that pre-trial argument was unsuccessful, as was their challenge to what formed substantial evidence in the trial: the 2022 search.

The search footage showed vehicles, building materials, children’s play equipment and sandpits around modest buildings with front porches, pot plants and long grass licking the exteriors.

The sky was grey and terrain muddy, as Dhruva is seen and heard in the background, talking about a “War Rant”.

An officer enters a house and a group of children are playing on the floor, music from the Disney film Encanto playing in the background.

“Hi kids,” the compliance officer says as the children cheerfully greet him.

He seems to reposition his body camera to avoid filming the children, as best as he can.

In each dwelling, bathrooms, kitchens and bedrooms are noted.

When the officers get to Bhadra’s home, the woman stands blocking the door defiantly.

She yells her ancient Indian phrase, which no one in the court except the Reids seemed to recognise:

“Narasinghadev!”

She asks police officer Sergeant Steve Hindmarsh to say it, too.

“I’m not going to say that,” he replies.

Alleged ongoing building work, and a commercial kitchen

The main facts in dispute seemed to be whether the building work continued on the large barn after notices to fix, and whether a “higgledy-piggledy” storage area, as the Reids claimed, was a commercial kitchen in a large building.

The Reids said the commercial catering business involved everything being prepared and cooked on-site at festivals, and the only time the storage kitchen was used for cooking was by guests, or for a big shared meal for those on the property.

The next issue was whether building had progressed on the large barn, despite notices to fix, with Jason and Dhruva telling the court they did one big working bee after a council officer visited, then stopped.

It seems the jury didn’t buy the defence on either matter, undoubtedly a personal blow for the Reids.

When the prosecutor cross-examined them and suggested they had used the kitchen for commercial food preparation, and had kept building the barn, and were now lying about it, they objected, appealing to the judge to intervene.

However, not only was the prosecutor entitled to suggest they were lying, he was required to in order to put the Crown case fairly and squarely.

Bhadra said afterwards that she’d felt “insulted and hurt” by the accusation.

‘Limitation’, ‘sovereign citizen arguments’, irrelevant defences

The essence of what the Reids wanted to argue was the council knew what was going on at the property since at least 2011, and turned a blind eye, meaning the charges were outside the one-year limitation period.

However, they were given a chance to argue the “limitation argument” at pre-trial hearings, given it was a legal issue; it didn’t go in their favour and they weren’t allowed to offer it as a defence to the jury.

Yet it continued to crop up. When their questions of witnesses seemed to stray into this territory, the judge would send the jury out of the courtroom.

It isn’t uncommon to have discussions “in chambers” – it’s a chance for the lawyers to wrestle over legal issues, such as what evidence is admissible, or trial procedure, without the jury present.

While chambers matters can’t be reported on, broadly speaking in this case they involved Judge Reid, the prosecutors, and two amicus lawyers, attempting to help the Reids stick to what was relevant.

At times it felt like all were working together to help the Reids put their best foot forward in terms of any legitimate defence; all expressed a desire to ensure the trial was fair, making allowances for the Reids’ lack of knowledge about legal concepts and trial procedure. Simple things like needing to stand when being addressed by the judge, or fundamental evidence issues, such as when something is considered hearsay.

It quickly became apparent how much time is saved in jury trials when all counsel speak the same language and get down to the nitty-gritty.

The Reids didn’t always seem sure what the nitty-gritty of the trial was.

There was an undercurrent of what the judge referred to as “sovereign citizen-type” arguments.

Dhruva’s questions were peppered with references to “contract”, “fiduciary duty”, “statute law”, “wet ink signatures” and “Crown agents”.

When cross-examined, he wouldn’t accept the property’s address or zoning, arguing something to the effect of its address being legally located in an office Wellington, and said his “legal person” was registered to the address.

These arguments were foreshadowed before the trial started.

A decision by Justice Andrew Becroft refers to the Reids filing “voluminous documentation” purporting to be “an application for judicial review of the decision [by Judge Kirkpatrick] not to dismiss the charges”.

He called the application, made in the weeks before trial, an “abuse of process” and said its sovereign citizen-type arguments characteristic of “pseudo-law” were “legally incomprehensible”.

While the Reids said their submissions could “no longer be vainly dismissed as non-sensical gibberish” and needed to be taken seriously, the judge countered that, “With the very greatest of respect to the applicants… their own use of the word ‘gibberish’ is an appropriate a description of what they have filed as any”.

Yet when speaking to Bianca and Bhadra Reid after the trial, they don’t describe themselves as “sovereign citizens”.

They pay their rates and parking tickets, though accept they tested what could be termed “sovereign citizen-type arguments” early on, navigating the justice system as laypeople.

For the two women, at least, the decision not to get a lawyer seems to be a financial one. It’s unclear whether Dhruva and Jason, who didn’t want to be interviewed, had other reasons for self-representing.

While Dhruva used “sovereign citizen” rhetoric in trial, Bianca and Bhadra’s main concerns centred on the council’s procedure.

Despite this, Bianca’s advice to those faced with non-compliance is to speak with the council.

“Hope that they’ll be reasonable, and help you,” she says.

While Dhruva didn’t want to be interviewed, he did send a message.

“Our family had adopted and identify with a very ancient culture based on love and respect,” he wrote.

“As love and affection are the ultimate controlling forces and the highest aspirations for a prosperous society, we feel it substandard to inflict harm in an area that no harm is inflicted.”

A rare prosecution, says council

A statement from Western Bay of Plenty District Council general manager regulatory services Alison Curtis said people generally understood the need for consents and just a “small minority” went ahead without them.

The council’s main concern with unconsented dwellings was quality and safety, and the risk people could be living in substandard or unsafe homes.

“Most people do the right thing, and it can be frustrating for them to see others ignoring the rules,” she said.

More dwellings also put more pressure on infrastructure.

She confirmed that the Reid prosecution was the second of its kind by the council in the past five years and said it aimed to work with people, providing advice and steps to comply, “which is why these matters rarely go to court”.

However, she wouldn’t comment specifically about the case or what happens next.

So what now for the Reid family? Will they have to remove the buildings? Will they face a fine?

It’s anyone’s guess.

A sentencing date of July 23 has been scheduled. The options available to the judge for charges of this nature range from a fine, to imprisonment – unless the Reids apply, and are successful, in getting discharges without convictions.

Separate to the sentencing, there’s the question of whether the council seeks enforcement orders, and again there’s a range in terms of what they might be. They could include orders to tear down buildings, or remove things such as bathrooms and kitchens.

For now, it’s understood the Reids, and their supporters, are preparing documentation for the prosecution and the judge as to what they think a fair outcome could be.

Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.