Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R v Ruffel - 1991

286 words (1 pages) Case Summary

28th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

R v Ruffel [1991] 13 Cr App R

Public Nuisance – Common Law Offence

Facts

The defendant had thrown an ‘acid house’ party which had attracted thousands of people.  The party involved very loud music that continued overnight for some 12 hours.  The party had caused traffic to block a road leading to the site and the woodlands had been littered with human excrement.  The defendant was accused of the common offence of public nuisance and was convicted.  He was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 12 months and had been fined £7,000.  The defendant appealed against his sentence.

Issues

Whether the defendant was acting as a public nuisance or not.  Whether the party which only lasted for just over 12 hours could constitute a public nuisance.  Whether the defendant’s sentence was unfair or manifestly unjust.

Decision/Outcome

The defendant had been acting as a public nuisance.  Following Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169 a public nuisance must be capable of indiscriminately effecting a class of people within a neighbourhood.  This was the case as a result of the very loud music of the party, the littering and fouling of the nearby woodlands, and because of the extremely heavy traffic that had been caused as a result of the party blocking the road to the area.  These elements were enough to have affected a cross section of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects within the area, and it was reasonable to expect them to have to take action to prevent it.  Whilst the defendants suspended sentence was upheld, his fine was quashed because he had no means to pay it.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles