They would not be permitted within 31m Do you have a good justification for that claim? If a judge made a ruling that someone couldn't approach closer than 30

They would not be permitted within 31m Do you have a good justification for that claim? If a judge made a ruling that someone couldn't approach closer than 30.5m, and the subject was outside that limit, surely they are complying with the judge's instructions? I would find it hard to imagine a lawyer arguing "I know the judge said 30.5m, but that also includes 31m, and 32m - the judge meant that they can't be in the person's face". You don't find similar arguments for prosecuting someone driving at 1mph below the speed limit - "I know the limit's 70mph, but that's an absolute limit: 69mph is not OK either. Nor 68mph."