All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
Where a person had not been responsible for a statutory nuisance, it was unreasonable to notify that person at the address where he was not living and then convict him in his absence.
12 October 2011
Laws LJ; Simon J
(1) Mr Khan (K) sought judicial review of the respondent Crown Court’s refusal to state a case concerning his unsuccessful appeal from his conviction of failing, without reasonable excuse, to prevent the recurrence of a nuisance. K had left the relevant premises in July 2009, and his brother had moved in. His brother owned a dog, whose barking was the cause of the nuisance. This resulted in an abatement notice under section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which was served on “the occupier” which the electoral roll stated was K. The notice was not complied with and K was eventually convicted by the magistrates’ court in his absence. K appealed to the crown court. There was no dispute as to the facts but the crown court held that K was responsible for the nuisance, since he should have had arrangements for collecting his post and should have thereby received the abatement notice.
To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).
An authoritative source of case reports covering every aspect of immigration, asylum and...