Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
1972 · AC 824
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Settling tanks at the company's works overflowed into a river because vegetation blocked the pumps that should have prevented it. There was no evidence that the company knew of the pollution or had been . The charge was causing polluting matter to enter a river, under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951.
- Issue
- Does 'cause' require knowledge or negligence?
- Held
- The company was guilty. Lord Salmon said that if intention or negligence had to be proved, pollution would go unpunished.
- Principle
- The word cause, in a pollution statute, can dispense with .
- Why it matters
- It is the leading example of a word of being read as strict.
Words and Latin in this note
- Mens rea
- The mental element in the definition of a crime. It is not one standard. Intention is the highest form. Recklessness is below it. Gross negligence sits at the bottom. The definition of the particular crime decides which is required. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.