THERE are laws that enable the police to provide “immediate relief” when there is a threat or actual convention of the law by noisy neighbours or any event that results in loud and excessive noise.

In a ruling on Monday, Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Prakash Moosai and Gillian Lucky also said it was now apparent that the issue of noise pollution was “ripe” for legislative intervention.

“It may not be a simple matter of hitting violators of the statutory requirements in their pockets by way of increased fines as a means of ensuring compliance.

“...We do not imagine that an increase in the fine will by itself suddenly inspire changed attitudes.

“...The legislature should, therefore, contemplate a clearly expressed path to compliance and immediate enforcement in circumstances where such is justified.”

The judges' comments came as they upheld an appeal of the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) of the June 2021 ruling of Justice Margaret Mohammed in the judicial review claim of fete promoter Wild Goose Ltd against the EMA and Snr Supt Garth Nelson for shutting down its Tailgate Carnival event at the Queen’s Park Savannah on February 26, 2019, two hours early for breaches to noise levels.

While the judges held that the decision to shut down the Tailgate event was ultra vires since the Environmental Management Act did not permit them to, they allowed the EMA’s appeal and set aside Mohammed’s orders.

They said the officers of the EMA’s environmental police unit could have turned off the music under other legislation to “abate the crime of public nuisance” created by Wild Goose on the night. For this reason, they declined to award the promoter any damages.

In their ruling, Moosai and Lucky agreed there was need for legislative changes since the act itself did not create a public nuisance or provide the power to abate it. They said the appeal highlighted the “inadequacy” of the act since, for the EMA to act, it had to first look at the common law.

“This court imagines that it would be both desirable and convenient for the EMA to possess the power to abate a public nuisance arising out of a violation of an environmental requirement.

“Fulfilling its mandate will undoubtedly be made easier if the power was vested in it to take similar action even where a public nuisance has not occurred, but there is an appreciable risk to the environment through an unwarranted act,” Moosai said.

Moosai also said while cognisant of the interests of promoters and patrons of an event, even at Carnival, the public interest would not be served by allowing the laws of the land to be “flaunted indiscriminately and without real consequences.”

While they noted that their judgment could not be used as establishing a precedent that a breach of a noise variation was equal to a public nuisance, it was, for this reason, they said there was a need for legislative changes.

“It is pellucidly clear that the ordinary avenues of redress provided for in the act cannot be easily tailored for rapid deployment in such circumstan