No case to answer – Róisín Finnegan successfully represents animal sanctuary in a noise abatement prosecution

Róisín Finnegan was instructed by Michael Riordan, Will Webb and Nicholas Pendrill of Richard Buxton Solicitors in a prosecution against the Happy Pants Ranch animal sanctuary for an alleged breach of a noise abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The Happy Pants Ranch is a registered animal sanctuary charity and home to around 450 animals, most of whom are disabled and rescued.

The Council alleged that the Happy Pants Ranch had failed to take all necessary steps to abate the nuisance from cumulative constant daily noise from animals, including cockerels, geese, sheep, cattle and dogs kept on the premises between 4 March 2024 and 30 June 2024.

The Council relied on evidence of an investigating officer, an expert witness from the Mid Kent Environmental Team, and a neighbour complainant. The defence obtained an expert report on noise and environmental health.

In cross-examination, Róisín drew out several key weaknesses and inconsistencies in the Council’s expert evidence, including:

• There was no evidence of the sound recording device being calibrated.
• Decibel levels were what was expected in a rural environment.
• There was no analysis or separation of the background sound levels.
• The location of the sound recording device failed to provide accurate. representations of loss of amenity, and had been set up in a location in a garden workshop as the complainants did not want there to be any attenuation in noise levels.
• Uncertainty surrounded whether the noise heard on recordings in fact emanated from Happy Pants.
• That there were gaps in the recordings and the complainants did have respite from noise at night, contrary to the report’s conclusions that the noise was constant.

Further inconsistencies emerged in the complainant’s evidence, including conflicting evidence regarding the sound recording device set up, and a social media post of a cockerel dated October 2020 being sent to the Council in January 2024 purporting to be evidence of the Defendant deliberately taking in more cockerels after the noise abatement notice had been served.

Róisín made a submission of no case to answer at the close of the Prosecution’s case. She argued that the evidence was too inconsistent and tenuous in nature, that the Prosecution had failed to establish that a statutory nuisance existed, and as a result, no properly directed Bench could convict the Defendant upon it.

The Bench retired and following deliberations, determined that the evidence adduced had been so inconsistent that it would be unsafe to proceed, thereby dismissing the case at half time.

Press coverage here: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sittingbourne/news/massive-relief-as-court-throws-out-animal-sanctuary-noise-337618/