Since attending the excellent BS5837:2012 and TPO Regs 2012 AA SE Branch
seminar last week I have been struggling to get my head around the fact that
the new 2012 TPO Regs finally make it clear that to 'cause or permit' an
offence under S210(1) is indeed an offence in itself, but neglects to do so
with the lesser offence under S210(4). However, Charles Mynors in his 2nd Ed
makes the point (I think) at 27.2.5, that despite this omission, the decision
in the Divisional Court in R v Bournmouth Justices Ex p Bournmouth Corp would
likely still apply, insofar "that causing or permitting any of the various
categories of operations is just as much an offence as actually doing them -
to suggest otherwise is "yet another of those submissions which are really
doomed to failure and to put the clients to added expense". "
Can anyone clarify for me whether my understanding of Mr Mynor's approach is
correct? I am also intrigued that if the ruling in R v Bournmouth is to be
relied on for either offence, why on earth was this not clarified in the new
Regs. Before anyone suggests it, I have asked Peter Annett, but he doesn't
know why it was omitted either. He did kindly offer to try and find out
though.
I think there is still be an offence to aid or abet under the magistrates Act
1980, either way.
Alastair
Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Save paper.
Visit http://www.tandridge.gov.uk for information about services, online
forms, payments and much more.
________________________________
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this
email in error, please inform the sender immediately and do not disclose the
contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
This message has been scanned for viruses.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
