Amendment of charges — limitation period — failing to register animals — not declaring receiving animals — failing to declare sending animals — National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012, ss 8 & 10(1)(a)(vi), sch 2 cl 25 — Resource Management Act 1991, s 338(4) — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 17 & 133 — Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss 43 & 43A — Crimes Act 1961, ss 335 & 345D — Burrell Demolition Ltd v Wellington City Council [2012] NZHC 1275 — District Court & Marlborough District Council v Babich Wines Ltd [2017] NZDC 23819. The defendant faced six charges connected to failing to properly register and make notifications regarding his farm animals. The charges arose from several audits of the defendant's farm, which had shown that many of his animals were not registered under the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme. In the current proceedings the Crown sought to amend four of the charges by changing the date range of the alleged offending, and to then make three of those four charges representative. If the amendments were granted, the Crown would then withdraw the other two charges. In turn the defendant submitted that four of the charges had been filed out of time and were therefore a nullity. The Court found that according to the charging documents, none of the charges actually had been filed out of time. However the Crown sought to amend some of the charges to include alleged offending that was outside the limitation period. Therefore the question was whether the prosecuting agency and other enforcement organisations had, or should have, known about the alleged offending and have filed charges earlier. The Court found that some of the proposed changes fell foul of the limitation period. However the Court used its discretion under the Criminal Procedure Act to allow the changes, finding that they would simply provide more accurate information relating to the charges, and would not be prejudicial to the defendant. The application was granted. Judgment date: 5 July 2021