My point was that you've managed 3 wins with SL offences, but how many hundreds and hundreds of cases have been lost - and I didn't just mean by you! The point I'm trying to make (badly!) is that for the odd case that you manage to get thrown out on a point of law, there are hundreds that proceed roughly as Ralph describes - with a guilty verdict.
Oh no, you had made your point quite clearly!
It is my error in moving on to make a subsequent point as if it was a response. Sorry!
My subsequent point was that it is possible to have (as Ralph C has put it) '100% certainty' in an SL matter, where the certainty appears to be that the Claimant's has failed! I wouldn't have pursued the cases if I wasn't that confident.
I would be interested to know how you won your SL cases?
I've hesitated before replying, and none of these were Offences 'on the Railways' but as I think the general principle may be helpful, I will expand a little.
1. Road Vehicle not displaying a 'Tax Disc'. A 'Strict Liability' Offence under S.62 of the Vehicle Excise Licence and Registration Act 1994.
There were two routes open to me: (i) The Prosecution had made a clerical error in the Summons which would have been enough to abandon the Hearing. However, they might correct the error and try again, so I kept quiet about that and saved it for an Appeal, which would clearly have suceeded. (ii) The defendant did not have any opportunity to Tax the vehicle in the brief time between purchasing it and being given the 'Notice' (unlike Railway ticket regs, there is nothing in the VEL Act which equates to 'having an opportunity to buy'). I argued that the Defendant cannot be guilty of failing to do the impossible. And won.
2. Company not submitting an End of Year Return for employees under PAYE. Taxes Management Act S.93
The Civil Servant concerned noticed that the Company Appeared to be in contravention of the requirements of the Act and issued a Penalty and claimed it vigourously to the point of levying Distraint. (ie instructing a firm of Bailiffs.). The Defendant paid up at that point. I argued that the S.93 should not have be applied because of a minor technicality, and that the Penalty had been paid under Duress (ie the payment was not an admission of guilt). And won. The Penalty was refunded.
3. Speeding motor vehicle detected by speed camera.
The Defendant had already paid a Fixed Penalty for the offence but the CPS had photographic evidence of her passing the same camera twice within the same minute (which she actually had done - by driving fast & making a "U" turn to pass the same camera over the speed limit again about 50 seconds later - her vehicle was over the speed limit on both occassions!) and the CPS wanted to prosecute for the Offence as the Fixed Penalty had not been paid within the time available. I spent a long time haranguing the CPS Officer about the comedy I was preparing for the Court if they wanted to prosecute for the same offence being committed twice within the same minute of time, to the extent of spreading the story around some Court staff such that it became a bit of a story. After a few curt faxes from me (and probably some jibes in the brifing rooms), he relented and withdrew the Hearing.
4. (Still to be determined) Taxes Management Act (again). I won't say much at present but it appears that the Defendant is accused (its a SL Offence with wording similar to "and he fails to") of something which the HMRC have not made it possible for the Defendant to do. I'm confident enough to go to Appeal if they succeed, but then it wouldn't be cost effective to do so.
Of course the relevant lawmakers in Westminster could improve the Acts to remove some of these weaknesses in legislation and in practice.
For your information (and amusement?), I did, in conjunction with some professional and personal partners, take an Alcohol Licensing case to the Magistrates, to Judicial Review, to Appeal, to another Judicial Review and ultimately to the House of Lords. We won! But by the time we'd actually got there, the lawmakers really HAD changed the Law, so regrettably, no one else was going to benefit from our, er, clarification of the law!
Hope this helps.
Now, I've a vague recollection of a case you highlighted recently which you described as a stunning defeat for the TOC concerned (a London area TOC), but in reality the guy did still end up being fined - and I'm sure somebody came back to you and said something along the lines of 'hardly a stunning victory when he was still done for the strict liability offence'. Alas I'm posting via Blackberry atm, so can't find the posts concerned!