Surely the case depends upon the meaning of "honest belief" in the context of criminal damages cases. It is surely impossible for any sane individual to be found in fact to have held the necessary belief (without adducing positive evidence to the effect that the owner of the property damaged would have consented to the action had they been asked at the relevant time)? The burden of proof must lie on the defendant. Therefore surely no defence in the absence of such evidence could be put to jury at least without a strong direction? The judgment when it comes will be very interesting
In the (very!) distant past, I used to instruct Lord Justice (William) Davis- forgive me this nostalgic moment.
What, doubtless, this and ANY Westminster government would like to see would be the “banishment” of what might be termed the “Ponting” syndrome where the jury- as I would argue-acquitted since a conviction and - probably- a “deterrent” sentence in their view would have been unfair and unjust. (I place “deterrent” in inverted commas since, ever decreasingly do I believe in deterrence flowing from consign or anything beyond firm sentences. I now brace myself - like Chicken-lick in’- for the sky to fall in on me.
Surely the case depends upon the meaning of "honest belief" in the context of criminal damages cases. It is surely impossible for any sane individual to be found in fact to have held the necessary belief (without adducing positive evidence to the effect that the owner of the property damaged would have consented to the action had they been asked at the relevant time)? The burden of proof must lie on the defendant. Therefore surely no defence in the absence of such evidence could be put to jury at least without a strong direction? The judgment when it comes will be very interesting
Thank you. I attended the hearing today but I’ll spare you the details. Judgment was reserved and I’ll cover it when it’s delivered.
Sorry: I meant to type “condign “ but my iPad spellcheck got the better of me!
In the (very!) distant past, I used to instruct Lord Justice (William) Davis- forgive me this nostalgic moment.
What, doubtless, this and ANY Westminster government would like to see would be the “banishment” of what might be termed the “Ponting” syndrome where the jury- as I would argue-acquitted since a conviction and - probably- a “deterrent” sentence in their view would have been unfair and unjust. (I place “deterrent” in inverted commas since, ever decreasingly do I believe in deterrence flowing from consign or anything beyond firm sentences. I now brace myself - like Chicken-lick in’- for the sky to fall in on me.