Statutory notice – Abatement notice – Reasonable excuse – Neighbours complaining of noise from respondent’s Jewish synagogue and school – Noise continuing despite appellants serving abatement notice – Crown Court overturning conviction for breach of notice – Whether court properly rejecting evidence of environmental officers – Whether religious worship constituting reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed
The respondent was a rabbi who operated a synagogue and school from premises on a site that was registered as a place of worship. His neighbour complained of the noise emanating from his premises, which prevented her from hearing her television or holding conversations. The respondent was served with an abatement notice requiring him to cease shouting, chanting and jumping on the internal floors of his property so as to avoid causing a nuisance to his neighbour, contrary to section 80(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Following further complaints by a neighbour, the appellant local authority referred six informations against the respondent, each alleging that he had failed to comply with the abatement notice without reasonable excuse. He was subsequently convicted by magistrates of breaching the notice.
The respondent appealed to the crown court contending, inter alia, that his prosecution constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court rejected evidence provided by the appellants’ environmental protection and pollution control officers, which stated that they had visited the neighbour and had heard what amounted to a statutory nuisance under section 79 of the 1990 Act. The court found that the noise complained of had arisen from the use of the premises as a Jewish synagogue and school and was more of an irritation to local residents rather than a nuisance amounting to a criminal offence.
The appellants appealed by way of case stated. They argued that their officers were experienced and independent professionals whose evidence had to be accepted by the court, or sufficient reasons provided for rejecting it.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
It was trite law that the court was not obliged to accept unconditionally the evidence of an expert witness, even if it was unchallenged. The fact that the appellants’ officers took the view that there was a statutory nuisance was not determinative. The question of whether the respondent had crossed the line and committed a criminal offence was for the subjective judgment of the court and not the environmental officers, no matter how experienced they were.
The fact that the noise had arisen in the course of religious worship in premises that had planning permission for that use, was a relevant consideration in deciding whether a nuisance existed in fact and, if it did, whether there was a reasonable excuse for it. In all the circumstances, the crown court had been entitled to reach the conclusion that it had.
Per curiam: Article 9 of the ECHR was not automatically a bar to prosecution. If a court, in the exercise of its judgment, was satisfied that a religious service was being conducted in a way that amounted to a statutory nuisance, the fact that the nuisance was committed in such circumstances was unlikely to amount to a reasonable excuse or to render the prosecution disproportionate under Article 9.
Simon Butler (instructed by the solicitor to the council) appeared for the appellants; Samantha Knights (instructed by Bindman & Partners) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady
