Defence of noise abatement prosecution against animal sanctuary

We represented The Happy Pants Ranch (“HPR”), a registered charity, who were accused of a single charge of breaching a Noise Abatement Notice issued by Swale Borough Council in 2021.  The case was dismissed after the Council closed their case on the basis that there was no case to answer.

The Notice required HPR to “take all necessary steps to abate the nuisance from cumulative constant daily noise from animals including cockerels, geese, sheep, cattle and dogs kept” at the premises.  The Council alleged that the Notice was breached between 4 March 2024 and 30 June 2024.

The Defence presented an expert report which highlighted flaws with the Council’s expert’s methodology and conclusions during two monitoring periods in March and April 2024.

The Prosecution presented evidence from three witnesses:

1. Their investigating officer, whose statement regarding the issue and service of the Notice was agreed and was read out in Court.
2. An expert witness from the Mid Kent Environmental Team, who gave evidence in Court regarding his investigation and his assessment as to whether the noise was a nuisance.
3. The Complainant in the Council’s investigation.

The Bench retired at the midway point to consider a No Case To Answer Submission by the Defence.

After deliberation, the Bench returned and explained that in their judgement:

• They had considered the test in R v Galbraith as to whether the Prosecution’s evidence, taken at its highest, was so tenuous or inconsistent in nature that no properly directed Bench could convict and that it would be unsafe to proceed with the case.
• The Council had to prove that the nuisance existed at the relevant time, that it emanated from HPR and that it impacted the Complainant.
• They discussed the evidence of the Council’s expert witness that there were noise recordings taken in March 2024 from the complainants’ workshop and, in April 2024, from the complainants’ kitchen approximately 6 feet from the door to the garden.
• The expert gave evidence that the Council asked to put monitoring equipment inside the complainants’ property during the first monitoring session and the complainants refused on the basis of privacy concerns. In cross-examination, it was accepted that the complainants may have refused because an internal location would provide lower readings.
• The expert accepted that the March 2024 recordings found only 4 recordings at night, all on one evening.
• He conceded that he could not be sure whether the door to the workshop was open.
• He conceded that the kitchen location was little better than the workshop, given its proximity to the external door and uncertainty as to whether the door was open or closed.
• The Court was played recordings selected by the Prosecution from both monitoring periods, and the Bench found that the recordings demonstrated low volume birdsong punctuated by occasional crows from cockerels and other ambient noise. The Bench found that the volume was so low that the Court was not able to form a judgement on whether the noise constituted a nuisance.
• There were two assessments by the expert of whether the noise constituted a noise nuisance, one for each period of monitoring. The Bench found that both assessments were virtually identical.
• The Bench found that the first set of recordings could not be relied upon to establish a nuisance because of their location.
• The Council’s expert witness conceded in cross-examination that the noise would have been in keeping with the noise to be expected in this rural area.
• The Bench accepted that the evidence given by the Complainant demonstrated that he was clearly disturbed by the presence of animals at the site, and did not seek to undermine that evidence.
• They noted that there was a social media post by the Defendant from October 2020 that the Complainant wrongly relayed to the Council as being from October 2023 and that it was apparently put forward by the Complainant as evidence of the Defendant deliberately taking in more cockerels after the service of the Notice.
• The Bench referred to evidence of a Lurcher dog straying onto the Complainant’s property and barking – the Bench accepted that this would have been disturbing but that this was not relevant to whether the Notice was breached because the Notice was concerned with noise emanating from the Site, and in this instance the noise was occurring on the Complainant’s land.
• The Complainant denied discussing the location of the monitoring equipment with the Council – this was a fundamental inconsistency with the Council’s case.
• The Bench concluded that it would be unsafe for the Court to proceed further and dismissed the case on the basis that there was no case for the Defence to answer.

Róisín Finnegan of 6 Pump Court was instructed as Counsel.  Chris Hurst of Three Spires Acoustics was instructed as an expert on noise and environmental health.