Not in a way that is binding on any other court.
You will note that the key words in Rule 6 are "in accordance with normal aviation practice" This was the wording in the old Rule 5. The CAA in a prosecution would normally call evidence as to how a normal circuit would be flown to demonstrate what 'normal aviation practice' would be and to rebut the suggestion that the 25 mile final at 250' was normal. I would expect that they would do similar to demonstrate what is 'necessary' as well as 'normal'.