Butler v Derby City Council

Butler v Derby City Council

The banner, as a whole, including the Derby Heart logo, telephone number, and website, constituted an advertisement, announcement, or direction within the extended statutory definition. The requirement to obtain consent for its display was a proportionate and lawful restriction on freedom of expression, and the appellant's Article 10 rights were not breached by the criminal proceedings, as he had neither applied for nor been denied consent.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Richard Butler; Defendant/respondent: Derby City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Advertisement Under Planning Law, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Amenity and Public Safety in Advertisement Control, Strict Liability Offences, Proportionality of Statutory Restrictions
Planning Law Criminal Law Human Rights Definition of Advertisement Under Planning Law Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Amenity and Public Safety in Advertisement Control Strict Liability Offences Proportionality of Statutory Restrictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Butler

Claimant/appellant

Derby City Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the banner constituted an advertisement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Control of Advertisements Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether the commencement of criminal proceedings engaged or breached the appellant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The banner, as a whole, including the Derby Heart logo, telephone number, and website, constituted an advertisement, announcement, or direction within the extended statutory definition. The requirement to obtain consent for its display was a proportionate and lawful restriction on freedom of expression, and the appellant's Article 10 rights were not breached by the criminal proceedings, as he had neither applied for nor been denied consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal is dismissed
  • Appellant granted 14 days from production of transcript to apply for certificate and permission to appeal in writing