In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even if
| the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as there is
| a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
| charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.
|
| Hopefully, no-one would seek to waste the High Court's time over such a
| matter. It would probably be reasonable to assume, in the circumstances
| described, that the agent had the authorised person's consent, implicit or
| explicit, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. ...

No, you have missed the point. Twice.

The danger with such laws that rely on reasonable people not
enforcing them is that it gives arbitrary scope for bullying by
authority. If you ever read the newspapers, you will see almost
daily evidence of such abuse.

If such a case came to court, it would be the High Court that would
overturn the conviction - if the person concerned did not take it that
far, his conviction would stand. And he would have to pay for that,
and be classed as a criminal until then.

Remember that magistrates are not allowed to use the justification of
"de minimis non curat lex" to quash charges - judges are, though recent
changes mean that even they can be overruled. And that even a case
before the magistrates resulting in acquital is stress and expense,
and damaging to someone's reputation.

| Perhaps so he can trick him into being prosecuted and convicted and subject
| to instant dismissal? A cunning stunt :-)

Well, yes, but I am thinking of the more likely scenario of a person
not grovelling appropriately to the Men From The Ministry or the police
and being prosecuted out of malice. That happens regrettably often with
our current "catch all" laws.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.