Burnett v AG [2008] JRC 054 (04 April 2008)

Burnett v AG [2008] JRC 054 (04 April 2008)

The offence of speeding under the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) (Jersey) Order 2003 is one of strict liability. The wording of the statute, the public safety purpose, and practical considerations support this conclusion. Article 6(2) ECHR does not require mens rea for such offences, and the signage was sufficiently 'near' Rue de la Hague to comply with statutory requirements.

Citation
[2008] JRC 054
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Before Magistrate
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Speeding Offences, Traffic Signage, Presumption of Innocence, European Convention on Human Rights
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Human Rights Law Strict Liability Speeding Offences Traffic Signage Presumption of Innocence European Convention on Human Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Before Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is speeding an offence of strict liability under Jersey law?
  2. 2 Does Article 6(2) ECHR require mens rea for speeding offences?
  3. 3 Did the traffic signage comply with statutory requirements?

Ratio Decidendi

The offence of speeding under the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) (Jersey) Order 2003 is one of strict liability. The wording of the statute, the public safety purpose, and practical considerations support this conclusion. Article 6(2) ECHR does not require mens rea for such offences, and the signage was sufficiently 'near' Rue de la Hague to comply with statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No increase in sentence; absolute discharge maintained