Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 277 (Nov)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Judge:

Collins and Sullivan JJ

Representation Lord Kingsland QC, Philip Petchey and Jeremy Pike (instructed by Taylor, Simpson & Mosley) for the claimant.
  The defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Judgment Dates: 22 November 2005

Catchwords

Town and country planning - Advertisement - Display without consent - Protest banner - Freedom of expression - Whether protest banner amounting to advertisement - Whether claimant's freedom of expression violated - , ss 224, 336 - Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, regs 5, 27 - European Convention on Human Rights, art 10.

The Case

The word advertisement had been given a broad meaning by Parliament for the purposes of the and Town and Country Planning Act (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 so as to include announcements and directions. It was clear that Parliament had intended that the word advertisement should not be given a narrow meaning limiting it to the display of material promoting a product or service. Moreover, the statutory control of the display of advertisements was not an unlawful or disproportionate interference with the claimant's right to freedom of speech guaranteed by art10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.