The farmer appealed against a conviction uder the 1999 Regulations saying that the fitting to his water supply pipework in a dairy udder wash were not likely to allow backwash so as to risk contamination of the respondent’s water supply. He said that the magistrates had run together the potential seriousness of any contamination with its likelihood.
Held: The appeal failed: ”likely’ in these regulations is being used in the sense of a real possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm to public health in the particular case. This interpretation does not offend against any principle of the criminal law. Parkin v Norman does not require that in all penal measures the court must take care to see that ‘likely’ is not treated as if it meant ‘liable’. As the court said in that case, the court’s task is to construe the words of the section in light of the Act as a whole. ‘
Judges:
Dyson LJ, Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 3432 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 1986, [2010] Env LR 16
Links:
Statutes:
Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999
Citing:
Cited – Parkin v Norman QBD 1983
The court had to construe the meaning of ‘likely’ in the section reading: ‘Any person who in any public place . . uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour . . with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Utilities, Crime, Agriculture
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392657
