ISSUE 5 2008 - Sweet & Maxwell

Crim. L.R. Public Nuisance Injunctions Against On-Street 357
and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects’’. 27 As regards the
‘‘class’’ of subjects which must be affected, Romer J. stated that this was a question
of fact in every case; although not every person in the class need be affected, he
considered it necessary to show that a cross-section of the class had been affected. 28
Lord Denning also added:
‘‘. ..the nuisance should be so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate
in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take
proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be
taken on the responsibility of the community at large.’’ 29
Not unexpectedly, given the lack of a definitive answer from the court, subsequent
case law found that a ‘‘class’’ could range from hundreds of residents in Shorrock 30
to only a handful in Johnson. 31 The trend seemed to be set that the courts deemed
an offence to be a public nuisance where the interests of the community were
served—rather than where the community generally had been affected by the
conduct of the defendant. For example in Norbury 32 it was found that obscene
telephone calls to 494 women who were randomly selected from a telephone
directory were a public nuisance. However, the House of Lords has recently
overruled the decisions of Johnson and Norbury and reminded us that the law on
public nuisance concerns the community as a whole rather than named individuals
within a community. 33
Furthermore, the broad definition of public nuisance has resulted in a wide
variety of acts and omissions falling within its scope. Thus, for example, whereas
the PNI was used in 1914 to address highway obstructions (such as a theatre
queue), 34 the breadth of the offence has enabled the PNI to be used to tackle
more contemporary undesirable behaviour such as glue sniffing on local authority
property 35 and drug dealing on a housing estate. 36 It is easy to understand therefore
why the civil PNI has been recently referred to as a ‘‘catch all’’ 37 remedy and,
given today’s community safety agenda which adopts a zero tolerance approach
to anti-social behaviour, 38 it is also understandable why the PNI has enjoyed
resurgence.
27 [1957] 2 Q.B. 169 at 184.
28 [1957] 2 Q.B. 169 at 184.
29 [1957] 2 Q.B. 169 at 191.
30 [1994] Q.B. 279.
31 [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 434.
32 [1978] Crim. L.R. 435.
33 Goldstein and Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63; [2006 1 A.C. 459 at [37].
34 Lyons v Gulliver [1914] 1 Ch. 631.
35 Sykes v Holmes [1985] Crim. L.R. 791.
36 Nottingham City Council v Zain [2001] EWCA Civ 1248; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 607.
37 A. Ashworth, commenting on Goldstein; R. v R [2004] Crim. L.R. 303 at 304.
38 See generally for discussions regarding community safety/zero tolerance: A. Crawford,
Crime Prevention and Community Safety - Politics, Policies and Practices (1998); R. Hopkins
Burke, Zero Tolerance Policing (1998); G. Hughes, The Politics of Crime and Community (2007);
M. White, ‘‘Blair’s Blitz on Crime’’, Guardian, September 29, 1998.
© SWEET &MAXWELL