Mance J explained the need to construe the statute so as to identify the rule of attribution appropriate to the relevant statutory offence: ‘The rule of attribution appropriate to a particular situation (e.g., the nature and level of conduct or knowledge which will be regarded as satisfying a requirement in a statute that a company should have done or known something) is in truth no more than a matter of interpretation or construction of the relevant substantive rule, according to its language, content and the policy: see especially per Lord Hoffman . .’ and
‘It is a matter of interpretation of each subsection in the context of each piece of legislation what rule of attribution is appropriate under each. In the case of statutes dealing with activities such as selling or offering to sell, it is unlikely to be difficult to treat the company (as well as, in probability, the relevant salesman) as selling or offering to sell.’
Mance J
[1997] 2 All ER 332, [1998] 2 WLR 452, [1997] EWHC Admin 873, [1999] QB 333
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Bromley Magistrates’ Court Admn 20-Mar-2013
Sewage had escaped from the company’s facilities. They now sought judicial review of their conviction under the 1990 Act, saying there had been no ‘deposit’ of sewage.
Held: The request for review failed: ‘the answer to the question whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137818
