Crowed 90 Times in an Hour and a Half: An 80-Year-Old Briton Was Fined for Crowing a Rooster (2 photos)

The owner of the rooster claimed in court that his bird was not crowing, but that the noises that were disturbing his neighbours were similar to crowing. To prove the "crime", environmental officers counted the number of times the rooster crowed.





Harold Brown, 80, was fined £200 after neighbours complained about his rooster crowing at 3am.

Harold Brown's rooster crowed once a minute for an hour and a half. Frustrated neighbours complained of incessant "crowing" recorded by environmental officers.

Brown claimed in court that the sound was more like a "croak" than a traditional cockerel crowing, but six of his neighbours told the court they had to avoid part of their home to escape the "distinct" and "significant" crowing that occurred most mornings.

The cockerel's owner denied the evidence and claimed there was a "conspiracy" against him by both residents and the local council.



After a judge found him guilty of failing to comply with a noise order, he was fined £200.

What was even more interesting, however, was that Brown had previously owned another rooster, which had also been a nuisance to neighbours and which they had complained about. However, it died. The neighbours had a short period of "peace" before Brown bought a new rooster. It was because of this new rooster that the man was fined.

The court heard evidence from two environmental officers who visited Brown's address. They recorded the rooster crowing around 90 times over an hour and a half.

One neighbour, Barbara Crone, told the court she had been woken repeatedly by the noisy bird, which "constantly" disrupted her sleep.

"I suffer from migraines a lot and often if you're suffering from a migraine and you hear a rooster crowing it's just a form of torture," the woman said.

Another neighbour, Claire Palmer, told the court she had to avoid the south side of her home to avoid the noise.

Brown pleaded not guilty to one charge of failing to comply with a noise notice, but the judge found him guilty. As well as the fine, he was ordered to pay £300 costs and an £80 surcharge.