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.