Thread: The Law - any clarity?

No I am saying you haven't made your case... don't bother quoting latin at me, I know just as much as you do, if not more. The wider audience are already unimpressed with this argument already, and latin will finish them off.

Dreadon as you quoted it, does not bind other cases in applying the need for intention to be established. The judge say specifically that in the quote that you made. Again you fail to qualify the context or the facts in argument - it is possible that the judge brought in other levels of accountability, recklessness or carelessness but you do not specify. You made the argument - I just questioned it - you need to back it up..

Egg shell sensitivity? What about mental injury? The most obvious area? Do you think that the mental effect of being frightened might have some relationship to that area of law in allowing a judge to determine the merit of the complainants case?

This law cannot be applied in the absense of knowledge, absence of intent, abcense of recklessness or carelessness. If it was that would lead to inequitable outcome. All I am asking you to do is to clarify what is required to establish this offence and what you have quoted from Dreadon does not do that. This is not a strict liability offence.