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.
It is apparent that Mr Hamilton assumed from Mr Bell's request for details of the procedure that he was unaware of the need to obtain consent. It is not in doubt that he was aware before 19 June that consent had to be obtained.
• The Department understood at the time of the decision that the members of the Lodge, when they became aware of the requirements of Article 73, sought consent and adhered to the conditions of that consent (the delay in removal of the arch was upon police advice).
• To have prosecuted might only have had the effect of causing persons engaged in the erection of arches not to reveal their identity by applying for consent.
• The Department endeavours to obtain co-operation from such persons in following the statutory regime and prosecution would have been likely to be counter-productive.
• Considerations of retribution and deterrence did not warrant a prosecution.
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.