Area(s) of Law :
Source : EWHC 166 (Admin)
Nuisance- criminal prosecution
Noise from Synagogue and school un by R – abatement notice served- alleged breaches- R convicted by Magistrates- R appealed by way of re-hearing in the Crown Court –R contended not a nuisance, and that prosecution was breach of Art. 9 of the ECHR – evidence lead by A from expert environmental protection and pollution control officers that noise was a nuisance- appeal allowed in Crown Court on basis that noise did not constitute a nuisance, and was therefore not a breach of the abatement notice- appeal by A to Divisional Court by way of case stated:
Held: Appeal dismissed. The Court is not obliged to accept unconditionally the evidence of an expert that specific noise amounts, in the expert’s view, to a nuisance. This is the case even where the evidence is unchallenged. The fact that the noise had arisen in the course of use for which the site had planning permission (religious worship) was a relevant consideration in deciding whether the noise amounted to a nuisance such that a criminal offence had been committed. This was a subjective decision for the Court to make, and not for an expert, however experienced.
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.
Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Hardwicke. However if you have any other queries about this content please contact: