The court considered the validity a byelaw. It was challenged for being unclear. It provided that: ‘No person shall wilfully annoy passengers in the streets.’ Other byelaws in the same instrument proscribed more specific forms of ‘annoyance’.
Held: The byelaw was invalid for uncertainty.
Lord Alverstone CJ said that: ‘. . the byelaws have endeavoured to deal with specific annoyances, and, that being so, it is difficult to understand what this particular byelaw was intended to cover that is not within the ambit of the others. I therefore think that this byelaw is not valid.’
Channell J said: ‘I think we must be understood to base our decision on the want of certainty in this byelaw . . in my opinion it does not give an adequate intimation of what it is that it intends to prohibit.’
Judges:
Lord Alverstone CJ , Darling J, Channell J
Citations:
(1902) 85 LT 682
Cited by:
Cited – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 6-Mar-2008
The court considered the validity of bye-laws used to exclude protesters from land near a military base at Aldermarston.
Held: The byelaw which banned an ‘camp’ was sufficiently certain, but not that part which sought to ban any person who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.266125