1991-01-21 10:14 SECURITY BRANCA
-
002 00O 2014
In
my
judgment
sub-sections (17) and (29)
the
acts
prohibited
under
are by themselves capable of
constituting the offences specified therein, without the need for additional proof of actual nuisance.
Excuse
I thought
Пав
Ithe hee told us there had
been Numery
prosecutions?
7
The contention here is that because the police
some 18 years or more,
either under
for
сле
single
have
of the two
occasion
when a
over a long period of time, not prosecuted any person
save sub-sections, boutique was summonsed for using a loudspeaker without
the defendants permit to attract passers-by, excuse in using loudhailers, honestly and reasonably believing that it was permissible so
arguments were
(17) offences.
to do.
had an
Similar
advanced in respect of the sub-section
In
this
V
I connection
Rust (1972) 2 QB
need
only refer
to
426.
There Lord
Cambridgeshire
Widgery CJ, sitting with Shaw and Wien JJ, described the have the word "excuse" as a reasonable belief that you
A defendant therefore right to do what you seek to do. has a lawful excuse if, on reasonable grounds. honestly mistaken as to a fact (at p. He went on to say, I do not believe at any time one can have lawful excuse for conduct because one
as to the law; everyone is supposed to
he is
433 E, F. 434B).
one is mistaken know the law, but
a mistake of fact of the kind which I have seems to me to amount to lawful excuse.
I see
no
mistake
as
case.
1#
described
(at p. 434B).
to fact in the present
}