Friends of Finsbury Park Appeal against Wireless set for 2nd November - Harringay online2024-03-29T09:06:33Zhttps://harringayonline.com/forum/topics/friends-of-finsbury-park-appeal-against-wireless-set-for-2nd?commentId=844301%3AComment%3A1025348&feed=yes&xn_auth=noReading the FoFP statement an…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-23:844301:Comment:10369962017-11-23T08:30:39.411ZMichael Andersonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/17bathgate
Reading the FoFP statement and the actual court judgement you’d think they were in different rooms at the time
Reading the FoFP statement and the actual court judgement you’d think they were in different rooms at the time Are you really, really saying…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-22:844301:Comment:10369522017-11-22T17:32:01.228ZJohn McMullanhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/bogan72
<p>Are you really, really saying that Cliver Carter doesn't get very far in court? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, although the Firoka affair does predate Twitter.</p>
<p>Are you really, really saying that Cliver Carter doesn't get very far in court? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, although the Firoka affair does predate Twitter.</p> I've attached a copy of yeste…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-17:844301:Comment:10354872017-11-17T09:33:55.942ZKatie Khttps://harringayonline.com/profile/KatieKinnear
<p>I've attached a copy of yesterday's judgment, for anybody who wants to see the full text.</p>
<p>I've attached a copy of yesterday's judgment, for anybody who wants to see the full text.</p> Thanks Knavel. Interesting to…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-17:844301:Comment:10354702017-11-17T06:55:00.315ZMichael Andersonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/17bathgate
Thanks Knavel. Interesting to read the difference between what the court actually said and how that has been presented on the FOFP website.
Thanks Knavel. Interesting to read the difference between what the court actually said and how that has been presented on the FOFP website. I've read the only thing that…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-16:844301:Comment:10352972017-11-16T22:34:48.460Z1vut8bf3om5m9https://harringayonline.com/xn/detail/u_1vut8bf3om5m9
<p>I've read the only thing that matters, the judgment. It's refreshing to read from a judge rather than a post on the internet.</p>
<p>The FOFP had their arses handed to them and to say otherwise is specious. What the case was largely about was combing through a number of laws on topic and interpreting them in a non-conflicting manner. Also at issue was specific application of a certain statutory instrument to London boroughs (councils).</p>
<p>The court held that <em>as a general…</em></p>
<p>I've read the only thing that matters, the judgment. It's refreshing to read from a judge rather than a post on the internet.</p>
<p>The FOFP had their arses handed to them and to say otherwise is specious. What the case was largely about was combing through a number of laws on topic and interpreting them in a non-conflicting manner. Also at issue was specific application of a certain statutory instrument to London boroughs (councils).</p>
<p>The court held that <em>as a general proposition</em> the park is held in trust for the public. But that a different law (the s.145 mentioned) clearly allows for an event like Wireless on the terms we have all seen. </p>
<p>---</p>
<p><em>FOFP: Crucially, the Court of Appeal raises therefore the prospect that where a local authority uses s.145 to exclude the public from a park, that decision can be challenged by residents asserting that the closure of a park is unlawful because it interferes too much with the public’s right to use the park for recreation. </em></p>
<p>No. The Court implied that some way out there abstract sense, the Council could use it's s. 145 power unlawfully, but that is a case by case matter. </p>
<p>____</p>
<p>The Court: "<em>This appeal concerns the issue of whether, as a matter of jurisdiction, the Council had power under section 145 to hire out part of the Park for the purposes of the Wireless Festival; or whether, as a matter of jurisdiction, they were limited to considering the application for hire only under section 44 of the 1890 Act or article 7 of the 1967 Act. In respect of that issue,</em> <strong><em>it seems to me that that the statutory trust provisions of section 10 of the 1906 Act are of limited value, because section 145 clearly gives local authorities the power to enclose parts of a park that is subject to that trust: the issue is whether it applies to London, and hence the Park</em>. </strong>[The court found s.145 applies to London--emphasis added].</p>
<p>The above is the language of the law, not someone on the internet looking to raise money by an emotional appeal. You can see the FOFP's assertion about trusts is bogus. </p>
<p>What was kind of funny to me is there is a common law rule that the court only considers issue(s) properly put before it. These FOFP didn't even raise the right legal question and the court commented on that anyway, although it did not have to:</p>
<p>The Court<em>: "There is no challenge to the Council’s exercise of the section 145 power in this case, if it had such a power; and, consequently, no evidence has been lodged by the Council in respect of it. Given the consultation and other processes that went into the Council’s policy on events in the park generally, and its decision to grant Festival Republic a premises licence and Live Nation a hiring of part of the Park for the festival, it may be that such a challenge would have been difficult to mount or even untenable; but, as no such challenge has been made, it would be inappropriate to say anything further about it.</em></p>
<p><em>___</em></p>
<p>I should mention that the decision was unanimous (3 judges) and that the lower court (High Court) judge's legal conclusions were wholly affirmed. It is likely if the Supreme Court hears the case the outcome will not change.</p> Below is from The Friends of…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-16:844301:Comment:10352692017-11-16T18:56:34.116ZMichael Andersonhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/17bathgate
Below is from The Friends of Finsbury Park website. What I find rather disturbing is that they now seem to want to have some kind of judgement that means that monies raised from Finsbury Park events can ONLY be spent on Finsbury Park, not for general improvements to parks in the borough.<br></br>
<br></br>
The Court of Appeal gave judgment on Thursday 16 November 2017 at 2 p.m. Although the Court of Appeal refused the Friends’ appeal, the judgment is extremely important in that it acknowledges that…
Below is from The Friends of Finsbury Park website. What I find rather disturbing is that they now seem to want to have some kind of judgement that means that monies raised from Finsbury Park events can ONLY be spent on Finsbury Park, not for general improvements to parks in the borough.<br/>
<br/>
The Court of Appeal gave judgment on Thursday 16 November 2017 at 2 p.m. Although the Court of Appeal refused the Friends’ appeal, the judgment is extremely important in that it acknowledges that public parks are held by local authorities on trust for the purpose of public enjoyment and the public are its beneficial owners; as such the public have a statutory right to use the land for recreational purposes and the local authority owner must allow the public free and unrestricted use of it.<br/>
<br/>
Although the Court found that s.145 of the Local Government Act 1972 is not limited by any other statutory provision and gives the local authority the power to exclude the public from public parks notwithstanding the public’s rights, that power must be exercised lawfully and not perversely or to frustrate the purpose of the trust (i.e. the public’s right to use the land for recreational purposes). Crucially, the Court of Appeal raises therefore the prospect that where a local authority uses s.145 to exclude the public from a park, that decision can be challenged by residents asserting that the closure of a park is unlawful because it interferes too much with the public’s right to use the park for recreation.<br/>
<br/>
Also, as the court has found that the Council holds Finsbury Park on trust for the public, this means that any monies rasied by the Council from the hire of Finsbury Park must be used only for the purpose of Finsbury Park. The Friends will also be asking Haringey Council to account for all the monies they have raised by the hire of Finsbury Park as they are only allowed to spend the monies on Finsbury itself. The friends are concerned that in fact the Council has been using the monies for it’s general parks budget.<br/>
<br/>
The Friends of Finsbury Park maintain however that a local authority’s power to exclude the public from a park is limited by the restrictions on space and time as set out in the Public Health Amendment Act 1890, section 44 (closure of a park for no more than 12 days in a year or 6 consecutive days on any one occasion) and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967, Article 7 (max of 1/10 of park to be closed).<br/>
<br/>
The Friends have therefore applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and will continue to raise funds to be able to do this including for their potential exposure to the other sides’ costs, the court fees and copying charges; the Friends’ legal team continues to act on a conditional fee (no win no fee) basis. Please do let us know the out…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-15:844301:Comment:10348902017-11-15T16:52:31.134ZAntoinettehttps://harringayonline.com/profile/AntoinetteVCarter
Please do let us know the outcome if you're able...thanks
Please do let us know the outcome if you're able...thanks All will be revealed tomorrow…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-15:844301:Comment:10350012017-11-15T16:18:20.360ZMalc Bhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/MalcolmB
<p>All will be revealed tomorrow afternoon.... judgment is due to be delivered at 2pm.</p>
<p>All will be revealed tomorrow afternoon.... judgment is due to be delivered at 2pm.</p> Fortunately you too have a su…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-11-15:844301:Comment:10350652017-11-15T16:09:35.042ZJohn McMullanhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/bogan72
<p>Fortunately you too have a surname worthy of Lording it over us and passing your judgements ;)</p>
<p>Fortunately you too have a surname worthy of Lording it over us and passing your judgements ;)</p> See my post - a few minutes a…tag:harringayonline.com,2017-10-13:844301:Comment:10250982017-10-13T14:57:35.226ZKonrad Bhttps://harringayonline.com/profile/KonradBorowski
<p>See my post - a few minutes ago </p>
<h3><a href="http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/finsbury-park-music-events-summer-2018">Finsbury Park Music Events - Summer 2018</a></h3>
<p></p>
<p>For details of the six event applications for next summer.</p>
<p>See my post - a few minutes ago </p>
<h3><a href="http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/finsbury-park-music-events-summer-2018">Finsbury Park Music Events - Summer 2018</a></h3>
<p></p>
<p>For details of the six event applications for next summer.</p>