Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MS J BOYD KC (instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn) appeared on behalf of the Claimant. MR J CANNON and MS R PAREKH (instructed by Legal Department, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant. ____________________
(i) 70% of respondents disagreed with the policy of setting no cap on the number of SEVs in BCP;
(iv) of the 82 respondents who addressed the question whether there were additional locality characteristics that should be considered, the majority stated that no locality was suitable and that sex establishments should not be allowed anywhere;
(v) there was a high volume of comments opposing the licensing of SEVs, which described the venues and the activities within them as degrading and abusive to women. Many of these respondents felt that the council would be failing in its equalities duty if such venues were permitted.
A slide titled "Equalities Impact Assessment" stated that research into the impact of sexual entertainment venues was "inconsistent" noting that:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.