"Gaz" wrote in message
news:68r58fF2u6p76U1@mid.individual.net...
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:43:31 +0100, Sleepalot
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "nikeshoes" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Recorder Woolman said: "We accept Mr Badat is not the sort of
>>>> person that would deliberately flout the law by going through a red
>>>> light. He is a person of some standing in the community."
>>>>
>>> (Casual question) When did it become illegal to go through a red
>>> light?
>> A long time ago.
>>
>> Probably before most of us were born.
>>
>>
>>> I thought red lights were to be treated as "stop" signs, and
>>> that it was permissible to go through - with caution - under unusual
>>> circumstances (eg, if the lights were obviously faulty).
>>>
>>
>> There are certain things which are defences against the charge.
>
> But, it is an absolute offence (strict liability), and by its nature not
> possible to claim a defence??
>
> Gaz
Do you mean absolute offence or strict liability offence? They aren't the
same.
In Rv Larsonneur ([1933] 24 Cr App R 74), for example, L's visa had expired
and therefore had no right to be in the UK; she was brought here against her
will but was found to be guity of "being found" in the UK even though she
had had no control over this, and her case is often cited in support of
"absolute liability".
Going through a red light, however, is a strict liability offence requiring
only proof of the action; however, if the defendant's vehicle had been
pushed over the line having been shunted from behind, there is no volition
and an acquittal should follow. It can be argued that the defendant here is
not "a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply.." within
section 36 RTA 1988.
>
|