Railway bye-laws - strict liability

[CheapAndNerdy]

Until now I had assumed (I know, I know) that all railway bye-laws were strict liability, but now I realise that only some are (mainly 17 and 18). However I cannot find any official notice that states this. The bye-laws document doesn't make it clear (although some of the bye-law offences use the word 'intent', which was my first clue), and the primary legislation simply enables the creation of bye-laws, but not how they are prosecuted.

So is there an official document somewhere which states which bye-laws are strict liability?

 

[Romilly]

Legislation creating criminal offences, whether the legislation is byelaws or regulations or Acts, does not normally state whether or not an offence is one of strict liability. Rather, "strict liability" is a description applied by courts and commentators to offences where the offence is complete once the prohibited act has been done, i.e. the person's intention or knowledge etc is irrelevant. That said, sometimes the courts have ruled that an offence that appears to be one of strict liability does in fact require a mental element. And "strict liability" doesn't mean that there are no defences: it will still normally be possible to plead self-defence or duress etc (although those defences are only very rarely going to be relevant to an offence of not having or producing a ticket!).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So is there an official document somewhere which states which bye-laws are strict liability?

No. And there is no reason why there should be.

The words of Acts or Byelaws in themselves should be adequate in clarifying whether or not they create a 'strict liability' offence.

Romilly has done a good job of responding, and is correct in pointing out that Courts will sometimes clarify any uncertainty; perhaps even ruling that a particular Byelaw is unsatisfactory, perhaps that it should be read down in a particular way, or perhaps that it cannot be brought into conflict with a Statute.

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

Thank you both for your replies. I imagined the distinction would be more "set in stone" than it actually is, although a closer inspection does reveal words such as "intent", "intending", "knowingly" for some of the bye-laws.