Hobbs v Winchester Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1910 |
| Date | 1910 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
26 cases
- Mohamed Ibrahim v PP
-
Public Prosecutor v Teo Kwang Kiang
...the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.In Hobbs v Winchester Corp [1910] 2 KB 471 , the court had to consider s 117 of the Public Health Act 1875, which provided that where any meat unfit for the food of man was exposed fo......
- R v George Barbar
-
Charles v Skeete
...Lord and feel that the tendency in some cases to exclude mens rea stemmed from view held by such judges as Kennedy, L.J., who in Hobbs v. Winchester Corporation [1910] 2 K.B. 471 had said that in construing a modern statute a presumption as to mens rea did not exist; or, as it is sometimes ......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
Regulatory Offences and Reverse Burdens: The ‘Licensing Approach’
...as the right to trial by jury for ‘automobile violations’ ordriving while intoxicated has been traced in the US by Gray, above n. 46. 56 [1910] 2 KB 471.57 [1999] 2 AC 22.58 As Sullivan has noted ‘Driving while the worse for drink or despoiling environment may have been perceived to fall on......
-
Strict Criminal Liability: A Violation of the Convention?
...Law, 6th edn (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2005) 136.4Pain vBroughtwood (1890) 24 QBD 353 and Spiers & Bond vBennett [1896] 2 QB65.5 [1910] 2 KB 471. In that case, meat offered for sale by Hobbs, a butcher, wasdestroyed as being diseased. Hobbs who had been previously acquitted of sellin......
-
Rape in Victoria as a Crime of Absolute Liability: A Departure from Both Precedent and Progressivism
...444 at 451.41 Woolworths Ltd v Luff (1988) 77 ACTR 1 at 9.42 Binskin v Watson (1990) 48 A Crim R 33 at 42–3.43 Hobbs v Winchester Corp. [1910] 2 KB 471, 480; Lim Chin Aik v R[1963] AC 160,174; Gleeson v Hobson [1907] VLR 148 at 156–7; Chiou Yaou Fa vMorris (1987) 46NTR 1 at 23.44 Gleeson v ......
-
"Left behind" after Sarbanes-Oxley.
...LAFAVE & SCOTT, CRIMINAL LAW [section] 3.7-8 (2d ed. 1986). (62.) Balint, 258 U.S. at 252-53 (citing Hobbs v. Winchester Corp., [1910] 2 K.B. 471, (63.) The pages of the nation's newspapers were full of such stories. Illustrative of this are the following stories in the New York Times c......