Hackney (London Borough of) v Rottenberg [2007] EWHC 166 (Admin) – S 80 EPA – article 9 ECHR.
1) case stated – transcripts of evidence are unnecessary.
2) court not bound to accept the evidence of a witness, however expert, experienced, independent or impartial.
3) if a statutory nuisance exists, a prosecution is not disproportionate to D’s right to freedom of religion.
4) no statutory standard for subjective decision of what noise level constitutes a nuisance.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- In The Pink Ltd v North East Lincolnshire Council [2005] EWHC 1111 (Admin) - TSR.
1) court has duty to consider the evidence of experts, but the decision remains its own. 2) reg 3(1) TSR - in the definition of toy "designed or clearly intended" is disjunctive; - concept of design and clear intent relates objectively to who the product is aimed at, not, subjectively, to what the maker had in mind. - anything logically indicative to prove either design or intent is admissible. 3) danger of product cannot indicate it was not designed or intended for under-14s. 4) colouring, price and position of product in a shop are not decisive; but, each may help point to whether or not product is a toy. 5) CE mark does not in itself indicate that a product is a toy, but, can do so if no other CE safety standard is applicable to the product.