Att. Gen. v Arthur [1989] JLR_Note 8c (15 November 1989)
The court held that the offence in question is not one of strict liability; inconsistency with the application must be established.
- Parties
- Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Arthur
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 15 November 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Judgment
- Outcome
- offence not strict liability
- Legal Topics
- Offences Involving Devices, Plans or Schemes, Strict Liability
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 1 Party arguments 2
Parties
Attorney General
Applicant
Arthur
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the offence involving a 'device, plan or scheme' is one of strict liability
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the offence in question is not one of strict liability; inconsistency with the application must be established.
Court Disposition
offence not strict liability
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment