James & Son Ltd v Smee [1955] 1 QB 78 - RTA.
- "uses"- "causes" - "permits".
- an employer is "using" his vehicle whilst it is used by his employee on his business.
- "permitting" by an individual or company involves a state of mind.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd and Others v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1 – Ss 40(2A)(b) and (2B)(b) Buildings Ordinance (Laws of Hong Kong 1981).
1) mens rea propositions: (1) presumption that mens rea required in criminal offence; (2) presumption particularly strong where offence “truly criminal”; (3) presumption displaced only if clearly, or by necessary implication, effect of statute; (4) presumption only displaced where statute concerned with issue of social concern such as public safety; (5) even then, presumption stands unless strict liability promotes objects of statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent prohibited act. 2) does not follow that, if one subsection creates offence of strict liability, another must do so. 3) statute may be of little use in promoting public safety if requirement to prove knowledge. - strict liability may behove the incompetent to stay away and the competent to act with proper care. 4) word “permitting” in statute did not by itself import mens rea in sense of knowledge of risk but did require that D had power to control whether actus reus committed.