Merseyrail - Feet on Seat Frame

[Ganymede]

Once again, there is no mens rea in strict liability, only the actus reus needs to be proven, intended or not

 

Agreed.

[steveod]

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).

[obiter dictum]

Just a quick one and i will shut up

 

Bye laws are strict liability offences

 

Intent is Mens Rea so intent does not have to be proven with strict liability

 

There is no Mens rea in a strict liability offence, only the actus reus has to be proven

 

The fact a revenue protection officer witnessed the feet on the seats is enough to prove the actus reus

 

Where punishment is not expressly defined in statute it will be down to the judiciary to interpret the will of parliament

 

Game set and match

 

To be honest we seem to be going around in circles stevend and no one has yet agreed with your interpretation of the bye law.

 

I am not saying you are wrong as the decision to convict wil be down to the magistrate but i have seen no links to counter my first interpretation on this matter

[steveod]

Just a quick one and i will shut up

 

Bye laws are strict liability offences

 

Intent is Mens Rea so intent does not have to be proven with strict liability

 

There is no Mens rea in a strict liability offence, only the actus reus has to be proven

 

The fact a revenue protection officer witnessed the feet on the seats is enough to prove the actus reus

Where punishment is not expressly defined in statute it will be down to the judiciary to interpret the will of parliament

 

Game set and match

 

To be honest we seem to be going around in circles stevend and no one has yet agreed with your interpretation of the bye law.

 

I am not saying you are wrong as the decision to convict wil be down to the magistrate but i have seen no links to counter my first interpretation on this matter

 

 

 

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?

[obiter dictum]

No the actus reus is on the fact that feet witnessed on the seat is enough to convict, not soiling as feet on seat will lead to soiling through causation. Even if one spec of dirt will be soiling. As shoes are outdoor wear and in direct contact with the ground, the offence has been proven

 

Just because the words willfully are included does not make strict liability obsolete and Mens rea to be proven

 

If Knowingly was included in the legislation then that does show an element of Mens rea as a presumption

Edited October 15, 2015 by obiter dictum

[steveod]

No the actus reus is on the fact feet on the seat is enough to convict, not soiling as feet on seat will lead to soiling through causation. Even if one spec of dirt will be soiling. As shoes are outdoor wear and in direct contact with the ground, the ofence has been proven

 

 

 

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

[obiter dictum]

But your gluteus maximus is designed to be on the seat, not items of footware

[steveod]

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

[steveod]

But your gluteus maximus is designed to be on the seat, not items of footware

 

 

 

that's very true

[obiter dictum]

We seem to be drifting yet again

 

There is no intent or Mens rea in a strict liability offence, only the actus reus needs to be proven to convict

 

Bye laws are strict liability

 

God i love these educated debates:-)

[steveod]

We seem to be drifting yet again

 

There is no intent or Mens rea in a strict liability offence, only the actus reus needs to be proven to convict

 

Bye laws are strict liability

 

God i love these educated debates:-)

 

 

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").

[obiter dictum]

You have referenced American case law that has no persuasion on English Common law through stare decisis

 

I will use R v. Blake 1996 with Sweet v. Parsley myself as well as Gammon with the presumption of Mens rea

Edited October 15, 2015 by obiter dictum

[steveod]

We seem to be drifting yet again

 

There is no intent or Mens rea in a strict liability offence, only the actus reus needs to be proven to convict

 

 

 

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?

[steveod]

You have referenced American case law that has no persuasion on English Common law through stare decisis

 

 

 

I know but the definition may still be valid. I am looking for UK cases where it has been defined.

[obiter dictum]

I will use R v. Blake 1996 with Sweet v. Parsley 1970 myself as well as Gammon 1985 (Hong kong) with the presumption of Mens rea

[steveod]

I will use R v. Blake 1996 with Sweet v. Parsley 1970 myself as well as Gammon 1985 (Hong kong) with the presumption of Mens rea

 

 

 

thanks. that is interesting reading.

 

 

In R V Blake, IMO the court may have ruled differently IF the s1(1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 stated:

"No person shall WILFULLY establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy or install or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy" rather than what is does state which is

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy or install or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy"

 

 

the reason is that the court ruled that there was a strong presumption in favour of mens rea but this presumption was overridden by the social concerns.

In the case of 6(8) the use of the word wilful does away with the presumption, it does require intent.

 

 

In Gammon 1985 it again states that there is a presumption that mens rea is required but this presumption can be rebutted for the 4 reasons.

again, in 6(8) there is not a presumption of mens rea, the wilful part of it requires mens rea.

but it would be interesting to see if a court would think that Gammon would override the will of parliament in putting "wilful" in the legislation.

 

 

 

 

In Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) the court interpreted the statue as creating an offence of strict liability because the specific section was silent as to the requirement of mens rea.

6(8) is not silent as to the mens rea , it requires mens rea through wilful actions on the part of the accused

[obiter dictum]

Thought you would like it but we have now reached that impasse

 

Thanks for the debate

[steveod]

Thought you would like it but we have now reached that impasse

 

Thanks for the debate

 

 

 

thanks. for your reading have a look at B v DPP (2000) and R v K (2001)

 

 

I think parliament made an error in including wilful in 6(8) but its there.

[Ganymede]

It's like being back at law school in here! D

[Andyorch]

In view that the creator of this thread (aaran-j) has never posted since 10th July 2010 23:53 #28 ...I thank all the contributors who have posted information and discussed the various aspects of the initial thread subject but alas its time to fold this thread and therefore the thread is now closed.

 

Many Thanks

 

Andyorch