Indiana Jones

Resident Members
  • Content count

    1,627
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Indiana Jones last won the day on April 20

Indiana Jones had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

382 First Class

About Indiana Jones

  • Rank
    Regular User

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Specified
  1. Yeah that's annoying isn't it. It's a legal concept, it's not defined in statute. Quid pro quo, can you supply the 'definition' that a strict liability offence is as you gave it earlier?
  2. So, there are several resources online that attempt to define the concept of strict liability. A simple search on Google under the phrase Strict Liability English Law speaks about a lack of mens rea for one or more elements of the offence. Butterworth's Police Law ( 8th edition) by Jack English who was CC of Northumbria Police, and Richard Card, Prof of Law at De Montford Uni, gives the following : In the case of some offences, the courts have held that a person can be convicted despite the fact that he was blamelessly inadvertent, ie had no type of mens rea, as to a particular element of the actus reus (or sometimes even though he had no type of mens rea as to any element of the actus reus). These offences are known as offences of 'strict liability'. In terms of what you said re the offence having no defence, that is not the same thing. There could be a defence of, eg, infancy, automatism, intoxication or duress.
  3. That's not what I said. You're coming across as a bit ranty this week. Take a deep breath.
  4. Out of interest, it's it the RTA bit or the strict liability bit that you take issue with?
  5. Not sure if he had a solicitor or not but he had no advice from me.
  6. I'll be sure to send him your way - you can act as his appeals lawyer.
  7. Perhaps I might progress a third case for you - that it was neither sold, nor just given away, but was sent to them as part of an agreement entered into. As opposed to the marketing company just randomly trying their hand for some addresses from the Met's database.
  8. A strict liability offence is one where the prosecution does not have to prove a mens rea. It's not quite the same thing as saying there is no defence. For a simple offence against s143 (1) RTA, for the majority of road users, the offence is one of strict liaibility. There was either insurance in place or there wasn't. A friend of mine was convicted of the offence because his insurer had cancelled the policy. He was still paying for the policy and they were still taking the money so he had no reason to think that he wasn't insured, but he was guilty of the offence none-the-less.
  9. Straw man. It wasn't a data breach - there was no 'leak', it was a deliberate sending out of what is arguably targetted crime prevention advice. If we were comparing like for like, then there's no reason to think that a Leeds marketing company should be any more or less likely to keep data secure than the Met.
  10. No. A direct marketing company in Leeds has the addresses. The leaflet was in an envelope so I would assume that not every postie in the greater London area now has knowledge of where the capital's shooters are. Let's try and keep some perspective.
  11. We're drifting off topic here. R v Clotworthy 1981 would seem to be the most similar ruling. In short the jury decides.
  12. Agreed. Because the only one who needs to have formed the reasonable grounds to suspect IS the arresting officer. That can be tested objectively after the arrest by a court if necessary, but the simple fact of the matter is that these things occur all the time and the courts are satisfied that, by and large, they are correct.
  13. We've had this before George. And as before, just because you don't deem something to be reasonable, it doesn't mean that it's not.
  14. Too many people bang on about putting ADVOKATE into every statement. It's not needed. It should go into statements where it's needed only. Shoving it into every statement shows a lack of understanding about what it actually relates to.