even if 6(8) was strict liability. So the actus reus of "wilful interference" must be proved in the case of 6(8)? so by definition the action of "deliberate and with intent to interfere" must be proven for the charge to be valid?

byelaws are strict liability except where the text of the byelaw requires intent to be proven - its not a given as parliament can allow for that in the legislation. looking for UK cases but got some USA ones. In Bryan v. U.S., 524 U.S. 184 (1998), the Supreme Court examined the difference between the terms "willfully" and "knowingly" in the context of the federal criminal statute barring sale of firearms without a license and concluded that "unless the text of the statute dictates a different result, the term `knowingly' merely requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense," while the term "willful" means that "[t]he jury must find that the defendant acted with an evil-meaning mind, that is to say, that he acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful." Id. at 193. See also Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994) ("willful" violation means "the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful"); Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991) ("willful" requires proof that the law "imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty").

that's very true

I strongly disagree on the wilfully and knowingly. Wilfully by definition means deliberate and intent. the prosecution have to prove that "wilfulness" beyond reasonable doubt. Knowingly - a plaintiff must prove only that a defendant knew that it acted or failed to act in a given manner, and is not required to prove that the defendant knew that the conduct itself constituted a violation of law. Wilfully - a plaintiff must prove that the defendant consciously and deliberately committed or omitted an act that violated the statute

Ok it is possible that feet on the seat will lead to soiling by causation. but who says that even one spec of dirt got transferred to the seat? it may it may not. its just as likely "soil" from the seat of the pants of the person gets transferred. but as they don't try prosecute for 6(4) anyway, and the only case I know of the CPS dropped like a hot potato, it don't really matter. of course where proper soiling of the seat did occur such as large amount of mud, paint, oil, grease or writing/drawing on the seat then yes I think a prosecution under 6(4) would succeed and intent wouldn't matter. over an out

I agree with most what you say, the actus reus of soiling has to be proven, not the actus reus of putting your feet on the seat. and as Ganymede stated they prosecute under 6(8) anyway and not 6(4). you seem to be under the impression that the actus reus of putting your feet on the seat is 100% without any doubt "soiling" - perhaps you are correct but they would need to prove that any soiling "the actus reus" was done by the person charged. and 6(8) states wilfully interfere -there is no getting away with that - it requires mens rea. definition in all dictionaries of wilful is deliberate intent to do an act and the will of parliament was to put wilfully in that byelaw. thus they must have wanted intent under 6(8) to be proven otherwise it would have just stated interfere without the wilful in front. agreed?

agreed in the context of any legislation that states that "if you do x then you are subject to y as set out in the legislation". Examples as I set out in earlier post but such as if you run a red light, you drive with alcohol over a certain limit, then it doesn't matter you didn't intent to, you are guilty. however in the context of byelaw 6(4), the legislation doesn't say "if you put your feet on the seat then you will be subject to y" it states that "no person shall soil any part of the railway" thus leaving that "soiling" needs to be shown as having occurred. no proof of soiling then the offence not made out. and in the context of byelaw6(8) as per my previous post the interference has to be wilfully done not mistakenly as set out in the byelaw - in plain meaning of the language it states wilfully interfere. If 6(8) was interpreted as a strict liability without taking the meaning of "wilfully" into account, then if a person did an action that interfered with another persons comfort, then it doesn't matter whether they intended or negligently or mistakenly interfered, the byelaw has been breached. However it does state wilfully and so intention has to be proven( definition of wilfully is deliberate and having intent).

OK. lets add to that debate again. Railway byelaw 6(8) states: No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway. lets analyse. It doesn't say "no person shall molest or wilfully interfere, or which is likely to molest or interfere, with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway" This is very important part in bold that is missing from the legislation. It means that without the part in bold then accordingly the prosecution would have to prove that someone actually WAS molested or interfered with by the charged. They cannot just state that this make belief/potential reasonable person's convenience or comfort may or may not have been interfered with. Looking at other legislation such as the Public Order Act and the harassment legislation plus other common law, courts have ruled that where the "likely" term is included then an actual person does not actually have to have been impacted its just how a reasonable person would have been impacted or what a reasonable person would have expected. additionally as the train officer/inspector would not be inconvenienced by someone having their foot on the chair(as he wouldn't be using the chair in any event) then they could not claim he was inconvenienced( similarly to the fact that police officers cannot be offended under the Public Order Act by swearing and foul language as long as it wasn't abuse directed personally at the specific officer - and in that legislation it does have the likely to offend any person specified in it). Also the legislation states that the act must be done wilfully which means that the prosecution would have to prove that the act was done deliberately and intentionally and not mistakenly. many hurdles for a successful prosecution with a good defense UNLESS the person genuinely wanted to molest or interfere with another person eg blocking the inspector, locking oneself in the toilet for hours, sitting across multiple seats when someone else wants to sit down etc OR putting feet up on the chairs when someone wants to sit down on that chair and refusing to remove feet when requested. But someone having their feet accidently resting on the frame of the seat is NOT wilfully interfering so 6(8) would not be effective. And even if they had their feet resting on the frame of the seat and they were not aware that someone wanted to sit on that seat as they had not been requested to remove their feet, then they have not wilfully intended to inconvenience a person. all in my opinion.

So we do agree then. That's what I stated above. The mens rea does not apply in the case of foot on the seat, alcohol sale or toilet scenario, only the actus reus which needs to be proven. Been interesting.

Yes, I know that case. The pharmacist admitted supplying the drugs as he believe the prescription valid. So his mens rea that he though it was valid didn't come into it, he was guilty of the act. The mistake you are making is that the byelaw doesn't state: It is an offence to have your feet or shoes on any seat or part of the seat. If the bye law stated that then an inspector on seeing you with your feet on the seat can then testify he saw you with your feet on the seat, your men's rea that you didn't mean to put your feet on the seat means nothing, and you are guilty. However the bylaw states that you may not soil the train. This requires proof that it was you that soiled the seat(the inspector will state it was you so that is proved) but then he needs to prove that the seat was in fact soiled - it may be that you had very muddy shoes and he testifies that on checking the seat there was mud marks all over it so the case is proved, or he may only be able to say he didn't see any marks on the seat and so the case is not proved. That is why the CPS dropped the case of the man that soiled the seat on the station platform allegedly. It requires proof of fact that the seat was soiled. As another crude example, suppose you are on the train. You get up and go to the toilet on the train. You enter and close the door behind you and then notice that someone has used the toilet and not flushed it after and the toilet bowl and the wall have number 2 marks spread out by some disgusting person before you. You rush straight out only to see the inspector enter. He sees the mess and blames you. You are then automatically guilty of the crime unless you prove it wasnt you that did it? No they would need to prove that it was you that did it , don't know how and I suppose that's why there are no cases put forward like this. If they could prove that it was you because for instance cctv showed nobody entering the toilet since the last noted cleaning of that toilet, then it wouldn't matter that you only did it because there was no toilet roll, you would still be guilty of soiling the railway.

Strict liability does not necessarily reverse the burden of proof or lower it from reasonable doubt to on balance of probabilities. All strict liability does is remove the mens rea from the quasi criminal act so that if it is proved beyond reasonable that the act took place, it was the defendant that did the act, and the act was prohibited by the relevant legislation, then it doesn't matter that the defendant didn't mean to do the act, or was reckless or negligent in doing the act, they are still guilty. But all the elements still have to be proven. As an example, if a policeman sees a teenager walking out of a store with a bottle of alcohol it cannot be held that the shopkeeper is guilty of selling the alcohol to the teenager unless all the elements are proven such as, 1. The shop does in fact have alcohol for sale 2. The alcohol the teenager has in his hands was purchased from that shop 3. That in fact the teenager is underage In your definition the shopkeeper would be automatically guilty under strict liability and would have to prove he didn't supply the alcohol(which could be an impossibility ). The teenager might have got the alcohol at the shop he visited before this shop, the teenager might in fact be 18 but refuse to provide his age after the event, the shop might not even stock that type of alcohol . The prosecution would need to prove the offence. If there was evidence that the teenager did in fact get the alcohol from that shopkeeper then the strict liability would apply so that the shopkeeper would be guilty even if he thought the teenager was over 18 or even if he mistakenly thought he was selling a bottle of soda pop to the teenager when in reality it was alcohol. That is what strict liability covers it doesn't mean that the shopkeeper is Automatically guilty and the prosecution don't have to prove anything at all.

And that is right. Where a strict liability offence has been proven. It's the proven part that's essential. In other words if a sign in a train or station says no smoking, and a inspector, police constable or other official sees you smoking, then you cab be prosecuted under strict liability and it's no good saying to the court I was only smoking because of x or y and I didn't intend to smoke - the fact you did is enough to trigger the liability. However in this type of case of feet on the chair, the strict liability only applies where you put your feet on the seat and they can PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that you soiled the seat, so you don't have to have intent to soil the seat the fact it got soiled is enough. But just because you have your feet on the seat or seat frame does not mean it actually got soiled, they have to prove it got soiled and that it was in fact you that soiled it not some other person.

Except the bye law doesn't say anything about feet can or cannot be on the seat - if it did then strict liability would apply and so if your feet were on the seat you would be guilty. The byelaw just states in plain words that it is an offence to soil the railway property therefore it would need to be proven that the property was in fact soiled.

If parliament had of intended to cover actions likely to soil the railway then they would have put that in the legislation the same as they did in the public order act. Eg behaviour likely to cause distress, alarm or harassment. They didn't. It specifically states actions that' have soiled the railway. . If it was for the court to just add this in at their discretion then the court would be making the law not interpreting it. It's a strict liability that has to be proved. A person putting their feet on a metal frame may soil on the balance of probabilities, but it would be up to the prosecution to prove that it did in fact soil the seat beyond reasonable doubt. Unless there is proof to that then offence not made out. On other hand if the legislation stated, putting feet on seats or any part of seats is an offence, then the strict liability of putting your feet on the seat or frame would apply.

Reading the above it states "no person shall soil any part of the railway". It doesn't say anything about attempting to soil, or likely to soil, and so "soiling" has to actually have occurred eg graffiti or someone with muddy shoes leaving mud on a seat. It has to be proven that the seat was soiled not just a guess by the inspector.or is there an appeal court ruling stating that that section is to be interpreted so wide as to include "likely to"?

I juts raised as if I was in the position, it would be one of the sub-points raised in my complaint letter to management after the raising of the points under H&S and that my contract with the company does not state that not allowed to use private mobiles. just another string in the bow.

These were to do with Data Protection and Protection from harassment, were directly against facebook ltd and other parties, and facebook had to pay damages. in XY v Facebook the court considered the ECHR right to freedom of expression was relevant to the case. therefore in my opinion there is nothing stopping other convention rights being considered by the court either.

used to be thought of that way. but a number of individuals, have successfully sued Facebook based on ECHR rights. the courts must have regards to the rights when making any decision

Using H&S legislation would be the primary complaint, but violation of ECHR rights can also used as secondary should it ever need to be escalated to a tribunal.

You could always threaten your company with action for violation of your rights to privacy, expression and family life. Any court or tribunal would have to have regards for your rights when deciding whther they company was entitled to restrict said rights.

Whilst I hate the PPC companies and their charges and terms are generally not valid contract law, where does making reasonable adjustments for disabled drivers end? if they put the disabled parking bays furthest away from the shop entrance then some people will be moaning. yet they can walk around the shop aisles for endless hours! perhaps some disabled people expect reasonable adjustment should be checkout counters just for disabled people so that they don't have to wait in the queues with the other plebs. I'm sorry but in my opinion reasonable adjustment does not mean giving preferential treatment, rather it means making provision so that disabled people can use the same facilities as other people. in that respect providing parking bays that allow people with disabilities and adapted vehicles to park, providing ramps for entrance to the shops more than enough meets the requirements, otherwise where does it end. If extra time is to be allowed to disabled people how much time should be allowed? doesn't it depend on the type of disability as to whether it affects the person's walking ability? why should there just be a blanket extension? and on this strain why is it that blue badge holders don't have to pay in some parking areas but other people do? it surely is not based on income as I am sure there a quite a large number of blue badge holders that earn more than some people without blue badges! rant over

Hi If it was me I would email them and inform that you dispute that any amount is owed as the terms specified as regards cancellation do not conform to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations in that you were not specifically made aware that it was an automatic rolling contract and that you were not given a reasonable opportunity to prevent the renewal in that they did not notify you of the upcoming renewal. In order to be compliant with the fairness and reasonableness test I think automatic rollover contracts are allowed but only on the basis that the consumer is contacted prior to the renew date and affirms they wish to continue with the contract. only my opinion of course.

Hopefully the Supreme Court judges are more knowledgeable of consumer protection laws and aims, and give equal treatment to both sides in the case rather than the CoA judges who had the appearance of having made their minds up without proper consideration of the consumer laws, and the aims behind it. If a pcn from a council for £35 is a penalty, then a £80 pcn from a private company is a penalty and the fact that at least £65 of that £80 is profit to the ppcs and not loss shows that this system has no place in contract or consumer law. Come on judges. Hopefully they base theur decision on the law and precedents rather than what is in the best interest of the parking companies.

110% funded now. Keep going people then more available for research etc costs. maybe a whole panel of barristers too.

actually, if HMRC don't do anything about the PPC model based on the CoA ruling, then maybe I will start charging for my services using that model. Usually I charge £30+VAT per hour to be paid within 30 days. Instead I will charge £1 per hour for my services plus £29 payment charge for any invoice not paid within 30 seconds. that way I don't have to claim for VAT on the £29 as its not payment under the contract but reasonable compensation not subject to VAT. well that's what the parking companies are basically doing.