Patio partially within RPA

[daltontrees]

Hi Jules,

 

Not that I am doubting you but why? It is my understanding the TPO contravention is strict liability?

 

Cheers,

Surely conviction for 'wilful damage' must involve proof of intent? Otherwise the offence would be 'damage'.

[Chris at eden]

Surely conviction for 'wilful damage' must involve proof of intent? Otherwise the offence would be 'damage'.

 

I had this conversation with a solicitor about a year ago and he explained it to me in laymen's terms. Apparently there are two elements that have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

1. The criminal act. That you did it.

2. The criminal mind. He described this as blameworthiness, i.e. was it intentional, reckless, etc.

 

With a strict liability offence there is no need to prove the criminal mind part. Its pretty controversial apparently, I can see why.

 

When I probed on it he said, if you fell a TPO tree without consent and then say you didn't know it was protected you can still be prosecuted. Its not the same with all prosecutions apparently.

 

There are fancy Latin names for it but I forget. I think the criminal mind bit is referred to a mens rea or something like that.

 

I take your point though about the wilful bit, bit contradictory isn't it. I'll ask him next time I see him.

[daltontrees]

Sorry to contradict again, but doesn't that conflict with what you quoted before from the Act i.e. the damage has to be wilful?

 

By the way, the concept of strict liability and the removal of the need to prove mens rea (criminal mind, or more literally translated as the mind of the thing i.e. intent) is much better developed in scots law than in english law.