HC Deb 29 July 1935 vol 304 cc2390-2

7.55 p.m.

Mr. LYONS

I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, after "or," to insert "knowingly."

The Sub-section would then read: If the owner or occupier of any land subject to restrictions in force under section one or section two of this Act commits, or knowingly permits any other person to commit, any contravention of a condition attached to any consent given under either of those sections. … The object in moving this Amendment is to make it an offence only if something is done which the owner or occupier knowingly permits, and not to make him a criminal if an act is done, which is a contravention, without his knowledge. I do not think that it was ever intended that if an act took place without his knowledge he should be criminally responsible.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I beg to second the Amendment.

This matter was discussed at some length in Committee and the Solicitor-General gave reasons which, with great respect, seemed to me to be inadequate, why the word "knowingly" should not be inserted. One can imagine circumstances where something happens which an individual might have stopped if he had taken the necessary steps. It seems to me the offence ought to be one which is done knowingly. I believe that the word "knowingly" has a special legal significance, because when the word is inserted, it is necessary to prove the matter up to the hilt. The court has got to establish that when the wrongful act was done the person who allowed it to be done was fully cognisant that it was going to take place and did not take steps to interfere. When what happened might at worst be in default, I think that it should be established that he was knowingly a party. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to explain to lay minds a little more fully than he did upstairs why it is he is opposed to the insertion of the word "knowingly" in this Clause.

7.58 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

After the conclusion of the discussion upstairs, I promised to reconsider this point and, for what my reconsideration is worth, I can assure my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend that I have reconsidered it, and that I am of the same opinion. This Clause is dealing with contraventions of conditions. It is dealing with cases where the owner or occupier has got a consent, but on the basis that he fulfils a certain condition—for instance, that an access must be used only for agricultural purposes. Therefore, I think it is right that he should feel some responsibility for seeing that that condition is carried out, because it is on the basis of that condi- tion only that the absolute prohibition imposed by Parliament in this Bill has been removed.

It is important to bear that in mind, but my real reason is that the prosecution have here to prove a permission. They have got to prove that the owner or occupier has permitted. Quite clearly you do not prove that the owner or occupier has permitted something if it was done in the dark, and he had no reason to suppose that it was being done. You have got to prove facts from which the court will draw the inference that there has been a permission, If we added the word "knowingly" the court would say: "Parliament has added this word 'knowingly' although the section already contains the word 'permits' which implies knowledge or means of knowledge, unreasonably neglected, and, as they have put in that additional word 'knowingly,' it means that we must be extremely particular and put the heaviest possible onus on the prosecution." If the word were inserted, the prosecution might have to prove specific knowledge of specific breaches committed at specific times and that might be an unreasonable onus to put upon them. Take, for instance, the case of access granted on the condition that it was only to be used for agricultural purposes. Supposing the prosecution could prove a reasonably notorious user every morning and every evening of that access for non-agricultural purposes, I do not think they should have placed upon them the additional onus of proving that particular instances of the use of the access by a particular person were known to the owner. In this context, I submit that the word "permits" gives the principle, for which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have contended, its proper scope.

Mr. LYONS

In view of the explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.