Butler v Derby City Council [2005] EWHC 2835 (Admin) (22 November 2005)

Butler v Derby City Council [2005] EWHC 2835 (Admin) (22 November 2005)

The banner, containing the Derby Heart logo, telephone number, and website, constituted an advertisement, announcement, and direction within the extended statutory definition. The requirement to obtain consent for its display was a lawful and proportionate restriction on freedom of expression, and criminal proceedings did not breach Article 10 rights as the appellant had not applied for or been denied consent.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2835 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Richard Butler; Defendant: 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
Control of Advertisements, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Interpretation of 'advertisement' Under Town and Country Planning Act, Amenity and Public Safety in Planning, Strict Liability Offences
Planning Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Control of Advertisements Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Interpretation of 'advertisement' Under Town and Country Planning Act Amenity and Public Safety in Planning Strict Liability Offences

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

Derby City Council

Defendant

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 Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether criminal proceedings for displaying the banner without consent unlawfully interfered with Article 10 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The banner, containing the Derby Heart logo, telephone number, and website, constituted an advertisement, announcement, and direction within the extended statutory definition. The requirement to obtain consent for its display was a lawful and proportionate restriction on freedom of expression, and criminal proceedings did not breach Article 10 rights as the appellant had not applied for or been denied consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; conviction and order for costs stand.
  • Appellant granted 14 days from production of transcript to apply for a certificate and permission to appeal.