>> Not wrong. Intention is only part of law. Consequences of actions is also part of
>> law. Especially when consequences might reasonably be expected.
Wrong again. It is a vital part of the offence of aggravated trespass.
"does there anything which is intended by him"
The offence is there to stop you going onto private land and deliberately stopping an activity from being carried out.
Completely misapplied in this case, but perhaps the closest offence they could find that matched their lawful activity.
>> self proclaimed legal eagle that you are
So, we're at the insult phase again are we, Zero? ;)
You state an opinion, all is fine, I state an opinion, and I am self proclaiming myself as a legal eagle.
>> aggravating factors applied to the trespass.
You're forgetting the fact that they need to have intended to obstruct or prevent an activity, it is not sufficient that there was some disruption.
If it was, then all protests could be criminalised.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 14:18
|
