Public nuisance

Offence in English criminal law

For the tort, see Nuisance.

Part of the common law series

Tort law
(Outline)
Trespass to the person

* Assault
* Battery
* False imprisonment
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Property torts

* Trespass
* land
* chattels
* Conversion

Dignitary torts

* Appropriation
* Defamation
* Slander
* Libel
* False light
* Invasion of privacy
* Intrusion on seclusion
* Breach of confidence
* Abuse of process
* Malicious prosecution
* Sexual torts
* Alienation of affections
* Criminal conversation
* Seduction
* Breach of promise

Negligent torts

* Negligent infliction of emotional distress
* Employment-related
* Entrustment
* Malpractice
* legal
* medical

Principles of negligence

* Duty of care
* Trespassers
* Licensees
* Invitees
* Standard of care
* Reasonable person
* Proximate cause
* Res ipsa loquitur
* Restitutio ad integrum
* Rescue doctrine
* Duty to rescue
* Comparative responsibility
* Contributory negligence
* Attractive nuisance

Strict and absolute liability

* Product liability
* Ultrahazardous activity
* Deep pockets

Nuisance

* Public nuisance
* Rylands v Fletcher

Economic torts

* Conspiracy
* Restraint of trade
* Insurance bad faith (American law)
* Fraud
* Tortious interference

Defences

* Assumption of risk
* Consent
* Necessity
* Statute of limitations
* Self-defense
* Defense of others
* Defence of property
* Shopkeeper's privilege
* Neutral reportage

Liability

* Intentional torts
* Last clear chance
* Eggshell skull
* Vicarious liability
* Respondeat superior
* Volenti non fit injuria
* Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
* Joint and several liability
* Market share liability
* Transferred intent

Remedies

* Damages
* Punitive
* Special
* Incidental
* Injunction
* Tracing
* Detinue
* Replevin
* Trover

Other topics in tort law

* Tort reform
* Non-economic damages caps
* Quasi-tort
* Delict (term used for torts in some civil and mixed legal systems)
* Conflict of tort laws
* Private attorney general
* Class action

By jurisdiction

* Australia
* Canada
* China
* England and Wales
* European Union
* India
* Japan
* Taiwan
* United States

Other common law areas

* Contracts
* Criminal law
* Evidence
* Property
* Wills, trusts, and estates

* Law portal

* v
* t
* e

In English criminal law, public nuisance is a act, condition or thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the general public.[1]

## In Australia

[edit]

In Kent v Johnson, the Supreme Court of the ACT held that public nuisance is "an unlawful act or omission ... which endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public or by which the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all".[2] And also, public nuisance is a criminal offense at some common law and by statute under some states.[2][3] To establish a prima facie case of public nuisance, a private individual will have to prove: (1) title to sue, (2) that the interference is with a public right and (3) that the defendant's interference is substantial and unreasonable.[4]

1. Title to sue: In the case Walsh v Ervin,[5] as the general principle is usually stated, an individual cannot sue alone for relief in respect of a nuisance to a public highway unless he has sustained some particular damage, in the sense of some substantial injury, direct and not merely consequential, beyond that suffered by the public generally.
2. Interference is with a public right: In the case Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd,[6] a nuisance which is 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
3. The interference is substantial and unreasonable: The interference must be substantial and unreasonable in order to establish public nuisance. In modern world, daily inconveniences and annoyances are part of unreasonable and substantial interference.

However, there are some examples that shows even if it could cause interference to the public, there is no public nuisance. For example, in Maitland v Raisbeck, "it would seem that every driver of a vehicle on the road would be turned into an insurer in respect of latent defects in this machines", even if a danger was created because of moral use of vehicle.[7][8] In the case Silservice Pty Ltd v Supreme Bready Pty Ltd,[9] Roper Chief Judge in Equity stated that:

> it appears that in cases of this kind if the defendant has available to him reasonable means of removing or avoiding the obstruction, he is responsible for the nuisance if he does not adopt those means. The test is not whether an obstruction has been caused, but whether the obstruction could reasonably have been avoided. I think, however, that this is not the sole test of whether a person is responsible for the nuisance caused by the assembly of a crowd of people, and that a more absolute liability rests upon the person whose business involves the gathering together of a crowd, or who, apart from any consideration of the bona fide conduct of his business, deliberately continues to gather the crowd. [citations omitted][9]

## Discussion

[edit]

The nuisance action began in twelfth century England as a criminal writ, belonging only to the Crown. It was used in cases that involved encroachments upon the King's land or the blocking of public roads or waterways. The King sought to punish these criminal infringements, commonly known as "purprestures", through criminal proceedings. Over time, activities prosecuted as public nuisances included everything from embezzling public funds to having a tiger pen next to a highway, from assisting a homicidal maniac to escape to placing a mutilated corpse on a doorstep, and from selling rotten meat to "subdividing houses to the point where they become 'overpestered' with the poor". As these examples demonstrate, early authority to commence public nuisance actions was derived from the sovereign's "police power".[10]

Spencer (1989 at 59) describes the offence as "a rag-bag of odds and ends which we should nowadays call 'public welfare offences'".[11] But the common feature of the crime is that members of the public suffer a common injury through interference with rights which they enjoy as citizens. The modern definition is found in paras 31–40 Archbold (2005):

> A person is guilty of a public nuisance (also known as common nuisance), who (a) does an act not warranted by law, or (b) omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property, morals, or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects.[12]

In Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd[6] the issue was whether quarrying activities—which showered the neighbourhood with stones and splinters, and caused dust and vibrations—were a private nuisance affecting some of the residents (which would have been civil), but not a public nuisance affecting all Her Majesty's liege subjects living in the area.[6] In his judgment Romer LJ concluded at p 184:

> I do not propose to attempt a more precise definition of a public nuisance than those which emerge from the textbooks and authorities to which I have referred. It is, however, clear, in my opinion, that any nuisance is 'public' which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as 'the neighbourhood'; but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to prove that every member of the class has been injuriously affected; it is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has been so affected for an injunction to issue.

Denning LJ agreed, at p. 191,

> that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is 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.

In R v Madden (1975) 1 WLR 1379 the defendant telephoned a bomb hoax to a steel works whose business was disrupted for about an hour. James LJ accepted that hoax telephone calls falsely asserting the presence of explosives could amount to an offence of public nuisance but the few employees whose day was disrupted were not a sufficiently wide class of the public. But in R v Norbury (1978) Crim LR 435 the defendant made 605 obscene telephone calls to 494 different women over a period of four years. This repetitive behaviour over a long period, intended to cause offence and alarm, was held the kind of behaviour which the public has an interest in condemning. This is not without its problems because each telephone call lacks the element of common injury. As a comparison, the cases of R v Ruffell (1991) 13 Cr App R (S) 204 and R v Shorrock (1994) QB 279 involved the prosecution of the organisers of "acid house" parties at night in fields adjacent to residential accommodation with liability confirmed because they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real risk of creating the sort of nuisance that in fact occurred. At each party there was major traffic disruption and the noise of music, with clean-up operations required the following day. While R v Ong (2001) 1 Cr App R (S) 404 involved a betting scam in which the floodlights at a Premier Division football match between Charlton Athletic and Liverpool were to be sabotaged which was inherently dangerous to the thousands within the ground.

In R v Soul (1980) 70 Cr App R 295 a group who agreed to secure the unlawful release of a restricted Broadmoor patient was convicted of conspiracy to effect a public nuisance. The court seems to have assumed that the public would have been exposed to danger had the plan been put into effect. That the Crown had failed to prove any actual danger or common injury was not considered (see the critical commentary at (1980) Crim. LR 234 suggesting that the courts were improperly reintroducing "public mischief" into the law despite the ruling by the House of Lords in R v Withers (1975) AC 842). Similarly, in R v Millward (1986) 8 Cr. App R(S) 209 the defendant made hundreds of telephone calls (636 in a single day) to a young woman police officer with whom he had become infatuated, at the police station where she worked. As to the requirement of common injury, Glidewell LJ said:

> Quite apart from anything else, this disrupts the whole operation of the police station to which these calls are directed, because a member of the public may wish to report an urgent matter such as a criminal offence, and cannot do so or is delayed in doing so because of this kind of behaviour on the part of the appellant.

In R v Johnson (Anthony) (1997) 1 WLR 367, the Court of Appeal confronted the problem head-on. The defendant had made hundreds of obscene telephone calls to at least thirteen women. The defence argued each telephone call was a single isolated act to an individual. Tucker J rejected the argument at pp. 370–371:

> In our judgment it is permissible and necessary to look at the cumulative effect of these calls, made to numerous ladies on numerous occasions in the case of each lady, and to have regard to the cumulative effect of the calls in determining whether the appellant's conduct constituted a public nuisance. In our opinion it was conduct which materially affected the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of Her Majesty's subjects: see per Romer LJ in Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd.[6] It was a nuisance which was 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 her own responsibility, but that they should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large: see Denning LJ ... It was proved by the Crown that the public, meaning a considerable number of persons or a section of the public, was affected, as distinct from individual persons.

This was followed in a number of cases such as R v Holliday and Leboutillier (2004) EWCA Crim 1847[13] in which two animal liberation activists made a large number of telephone calls to employees and shareholders of certain companies whose activities the appellants opposed. The calls were designed to jam the company telephone switchboards, and some of them were threatening and intimidating.

The common law offence of public nuisance was abolished by section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

## The law reviewed

[edit]

In R v Goldstein and Rimmington (2005) UKHL 63 [14] two separate appeal cases were considered together. The Lords began their judgment with a detailed review of the law and its history. Two arguments were raised by the defence. The first was that most of the factual situations that might otherwise have been criminal public nuisances had now been covered by statutes. Thus, for example, s. 1 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 would now be used in cases involving multiple telephone calls, and s. 63 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 confers powers on the police to remove persons attending or preparing for a rave "at which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality". These statutes had, in effect, made the common law offence redundant and it should no longer be considered an offence in English law. The Lords agreed that, as a matter of practice, all alleged offences falling within the remit of statutes would now be charged under those statutes. It also accepted that this left only a very small scope for the application of the common law offence. But, just as the courts had no power to create new offences (R v Withers), and could not widen existing offences so as to retrospectively criminalise conduct (R v Misra and Srivastava (2004) EWCA Crim 2375), it equally had no power to abolish existing offences. However, cases such as R v Norbury and R v Johnson (Anthony) would now be charged under the relevant statutes.

The second argument raised by the defence was that the law lacked the certainty required to be valid under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

> No punishment without law

>   1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Of all the common law offences considered at Strasbourg, only the criterion of "contra bonos mores" had been held to lack the appropriate quality of certainty (see Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (1999) 30 EHRR 241). The Lords therefore held that, as defined in Archbold, the offence did have sufficient certainty so that any legal practitioner asked to advise on whether proposed conduct was likely to be criminal would be able to give an accurate answer.

### Goldstein's appeal

[edit]

As a cultural reference, Goldstein sent an envelope to a friend of his containing a small quantity of salt. Some of this salt escaped from the envelope at a postal sorting office, which was closed as a precaution so that tests could be carried out to determine whether the material spilt was dangerous. The Lords accepted that a significant number of people were disadvantaged by the closure of the sorting office and the loss of delivery on that day, but held that the appellant did not have the appropriate mens rea because he did not know or reasonably should have known (because the means of knowledge were available to him) that the salt would escape in the sorting office or in the course of postal delivery.

## See also

[edit]

* Disturbing the peace
* Noise pollution
* Wasting police time

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Stevenson, Angus; Lindberg, Christine A., eds. (2010-01-01). "Public nuisance". New Oxford American Dictionary. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195392883.001.0001.
2. ^ a b Kent v Johnson (Minister of State for Works) (1973) 2 ACTR 1; (1973) 21 FLR 177, Supreme Court (ACT, Australia).
3. ^ Criminal Code (Qld) s 230 Common nuisance.
4. ^ Carolyn, Sappideen; Prue, Vines; Penelope, Watson (2012). Torts: commentary and Materials (11th ed.). Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. pp. 754, 755. ISBN 978-0-455-23043-6.
5. ^ Walsh v Ervin [1952] VicLawRp 47, [1952] VLR 361 at p. 368, Supreme Court (Vic, Australia).
6. ^ a b c d Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1958] EWCA Civ 1, [1957] 2 QB 169 at p. 179, Court of Appeal (England and Wales).
7. ^ Maitland v Raisbeck [1944] 1 KB 689 at p. 692
8. ^ Harper v Haden [1933] Ch 298.
9. ^ a b Silservice Pty Ltd v Supreme Bready Pty Ltd [1949] NSWStRp 29, (1950) 50 SR (NSW) 127 at p. 129, Supreme Court (NSW, Australia).
10. ^ "Public Nuisance: A Historical Discussion". Archived from the original on 2008-12-20. Retrieved 2008-12-10.
11. ^ Spencer, J. R. (1989). "Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination". Cambridge Law Journal 55.
12. ^ Archbold (2005). Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice.
13. ^ R v Holliday and Leboutillier [2004] EWCA Crim 1847
14. ^ R v Rimmington (2005) UKHL 63 (21 July 2005)

* v
* t
* e

English criminal law

Classes of crimes|

* Indictable
* Either way
* Summary
* Regulatory (lowered mens rea)
* Statutory
* Common law

Elements of crimes|

* Actus reus
* Causation
* Mens rea
* Intention (criminal law)
* Intention in English law
* Recklessness
* Criminal negligence
* Corporate / Vicarious / Strict liability
* Omissions

Doctrines|

* Lesser included offences
* Concurrence
* Ignorantia juris non excusat

Inchoate offences|

* Encouraging or assisting a crime
* Conspiracy
* Accessory
* Attempt
* Common purpose

Defences|

* Self-defence
* Duress
* Necessity
* Loss of control
* Consent
* inc. participation in a sporting event
* Medical procedures
* Prevention of crime
* Lawful excuse
* Insanity
* Diminished responsibility
* Intoxication
* Category:Criminal defences

Offences against
the person|

* Homicide (Murder / Manslaughter / Corporate manslaughter / Infanticide)
* Unlawful killing
* Child destruction
* Concealment of birth
* Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm
* Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
* Common assault
* Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence
* Assault with intent to rob
* Robbery
* Assault with intent to rape
* Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
* Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty
* Battery
* Kidnapping
* Child abduction
* False imprisonment
* Harassment
* Offences Against the Person Act 1861
* Treason

Sexual offences|

* Rape
* Sexual assault
* Sexual Offences Act 2003

Public order offences|

* Riot
* Violent disorder
* Affray
* Unlawful assembly
* Fear or provocation of violence
* Harassment, alarm or distress
* intent aggravates
* Public Order Act 1986
* Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
* Nuisance
* Causing Public nuisance
* Outraging public decency
* Effecting a public mischief
* Keeping a disorderly house
* Preventing the lawful burial of a body
* Breach of the peace
* Rout
* Forcible entry
* Accessory (legal term)
* Misconduct in a public office
* Misfeasance in public office
* Abuse of authority
* Perjury of oath
* Dereliction of duty

Offences against property|

* Arson
* Dishonesty
* Cheating (law)
* Burglary
* Robbery
* Theft
* Criminal damage
* Squatting
* Trespass
* Taking without owner's consent
* Deception
* Handling stolen goods
* Misappropriation of funds
* Blackmail
* Extortion
* Cybercrime
* Theft Act 1968
* Theft Act 1978
* Fraud Act 2006
* Fraud by abuse of position
* Conspiracy to defraud
* Fare evasion
* Webcam blackmail

Forgery, personation
and cheating|

* Forgery
* Cheating the public revenue
* Uttering

Offences against justice|

* Bribery
* Perjury
* Perverting the course of justice
* Witness intimidation
* Witness tampering
* Misprision of treason
* Jury tampering
* Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension
* Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty
* Harboring a fugitive
* Encouraging or assisting a crime
* Escape from lawful custody
* Obstruction of justice
* Obstruction of a police officer
* Wasting police time
* Refusing to assist a constable
* Sedition
* Espionage
* Contempt of court
* Fabrication of false evidence
* Rescuing a prisoner

Other common law areas|

* Contract
* Tort
* Property
* Wills
* Trusts and estates
* Evidence
* Criminal procedure

* English law portal
* For obsolete aspects see History of English criminal law table

Authority control databases: National |

* United States
* Israel

|

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template