The ESA 1883 offences are serious: all carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, it is likely that a prosecution will be in the public interest. However, the public interest factors in the Code must be considered. Further guidance on relevant considerations can be found in other prosecution guidance, including Mental Health – suspects and defendants and Children as suspects and defendants. given the obvious risks with using explosive substances, any experimentation involving them which gives rise to a risk of harm to other people or their property, or other unlawfulness such as causing a public nuisance, will not be capable of coming within the scope of the lawful object defence.” consider ESA 1883 charges or charges contrary to section 28, 29, 30 or 64 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (explosives offending involving grievous bodily harm, caused or intended – or other intent contrary to the Act) Failing that, sometimes local MPs can write a letter to the relevant person at the local council or police station, and while they're all going to be gearing up for June, it might be worth a punt. I'm going to tell my neighbour about the plan as he spends time outside during the day too. Though he's smelt the cannabis smoke as well as my friend further down the road. So hopefully he'll understand.

Ed Hammond of the Sunshine Project, which campaigns against the misuses of biotechnology, said: 'It appears these weapons cross a dangerous line and appear to be tantamount to developing some kind of ethnic weapon. ' In R v Wheatley[1979] 1 WLR 144 it was held that “explosive” for the purposes of the 1883 Act should be construed in light of the meaning provided for by section 3 of the Explosives Act 1875: for offending involving the possession, making or storage of explosive substances, see the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005 and the Explosives Regulations 2014 made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 – see section 33 for offences and note the CPS role may depend on whether the Health and Safety Executive or the police investigate

Search Legislation

An Acpo spokesman said: 'We are looking at a whole range of non-lethal weapons including malodorants. We are monitoring all developments including those in the US. In a riot or hostage situation we want to minimise the risk of injury to the public and a malodorant might be one answer.' The US army dismisses such concerns, saying they are trying to find one smell that works across the globe and that a repulsive odour could drive away the enemy without killing anybody. I'm already photographing, videoing the doors open, and have gotten footage of them smoking by and in the building. I've reported all the problems to all the right people. At least with the noise, whilst distressing and preventing me from enjoying my property, I can stand the noise for a brief moment to enjoy the sight of my garden. The cannabis fumes however prevent me from not only going outside, but also from even opening my kitchen window, as otherwise I'll end up with a splitting headache. Section 9 of the ESA 1883 provides the definition of “explosive substance”. This includes “any materials for making any explosive substance; also any apparatus, machine, implement, or materials used, or intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion in or with any explosive substance; also any part of any such apparatus, machine, or implement.” “Explosive” is not defined in the legislation. Now in Britain the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) is investigating whether such weapons - known as malodorants - would be useful to forces facing riots like those in Bradford last year or anti-capitalism protests in the City.

Best answer: If you can see them, or at least see the open doors, can you record them in some way, say with photos (with date and time stamps) or on video? Then you will have something to show to the letting agents / EHOs. I would also log each breach in writing. She said that the smell made volunteers scream and curse after just a few seconds of exposure, even though it is quite harmless.This applies to non-terrorist offending. Potential Terrorism Act offences would fall to the Counter Terrorism Division to consider. Explosives-related offending which may be terrorist in nature should be considered in conjunction with Counter Terrorism Division: see the Referrals, Approvals and Notifications prosecution guidance. Explosives-related incidents which are being investigated by the Health and Safety Executive should consider the Relationships with Other Prosecuting Authorities prosecution guidance. Evidential considerations

She found that two smells transcended cultural barriers: one is called US Government Standard Bathroom Malodour, a horrendously concentrated stink of human faeces.

Opening Options

I know this is probably a ridicolous idea and question I'm currently unable to spend much time in my garden due to some obnoxious people working in the two business units that are around 3m from the bottom of my garden. There's a lot of noise, but at least in a pinch I can wear headphones, although that defeats the point of me being in the garden as I want to hear the birds. The main problem though is that they're smoking cannabis in the rear fire escape route. This means that my garden is filled with the smell of cannabis smoke - the other day I opened my kitchen door and was hit by the smell. This gives me a splitting headache and means that I really can't be out in my garden until the smell goes away. As holding my breath or wearing a vapour mask isn't really an option. Expert evidence should only seek to assist with specialist knowledge and information outside the knowledge of the tribunal of fact. Proof of the offence may come, in part, from what non-expert witnesses have observed. Highly exceptionally it may come solely from non-expert witnesses where it is established that an expert cannot assist with specialist knowledge and information and where the non-expert evidence provides sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. Prosecutors should make clear in such highly exceptional cases the position as to expert evidence in their application for consent, liaising with the AGO as appropriate prior to submission of the application. Consent applications must explain the prosecutor’s position on the question of expert evidence. In threshold test cases, this includes on what basis it is said there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person to be charged has committed the offence alleged, and what further evidence is likely to be available within a reasonable time. This will ordinarily involve providing at least preliminary expert evidence with the application. Lawful object The US stink bomb research is part of the Pentagon's non-lethal weapons programme, which is working closely with the British military. One question she was trying to answer was whether there were different cultural reactions to bad smells. She tested the odours on five ethnic groups. In 1998, the Pentagon commissioned scientist Pam Dalton, from the Monell Chemical Senses Centre in Philadelphia, to test disgusting odours.