Onasanya v London Borough of Newham

Onasanya v London Borough of Newham

The statutory defence under section 38(2) is satisfied if the article was brought into the street for some purpose other than street trading, regardless of duality of purpose. The findings of fact established that the vehicles were in the streets for legitimate reasons unrelated to street trading, and the evidential burden was discharged. The registered keeper is not liable when the vehicle is in the possession and control of another.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Johnson Onasanya; Respondent/appellant: London Borough of Newham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Mr Onasanya's appeal allowed; Newham's appeal dismissed; conviction quashed; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Street Trading, Statutory Interpretation, Evidential Burden, Costs in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Local Government Law Unlawful Street Trading Statutory Interpretation Evidential Burden Costs in Criminal Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnson Onasanya

Appellant/respondent

London Borough of Newham

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether displaying a 'for sale' notice in a private vehicle parked on a public street constitutes unlawful street trading under section 38(1)(a) of the London Local Authorities Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the statutory defence under section 38(2) was available to the appellant in the circumstances of each case
  3. 3 Whether the evidential burden under section 38(2) was discharged where the appellant did not give evidence but relied on an interview

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory defence under section 38(2) is satisfied if the article was brought into the street for some purpose other than street trading, regardless of duality of purpose. The findings of fact established that the vehicles were in the streets for legitimate reasons unrelated to street trading, and the evidential burden was discharged. The registered keeper is not liable when the vehicle is in the possession and control of another.

Court Disposition

Mr Onasanya's appeal allowed; Newham's appeal dismissed; conviction quashed; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Conviction of Mr Onasanya in the Volvo case quashed.
  • Order for costs against Mr Onasanya in the Magistrates' Court quashed.