The High Court ruled that an offence under Regulation 4(3) of the 2005 European Communities (Conservation of Wild Birds) (Owenduff/Nephin SPA004098) Regulations is one of strict liability. Prosecutors therefore do not have to prove that an accused intended livestock to graze in breach of the regulation.
Mr Justice Hedigan gave the ruling on 12 May 2009 in an appeal by way of case stated, brought by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The question referred was whether a District Judge had been correct to find that the offence was not one of strict liability. The High Court answered “in the negative” and held that the District Judge was wrong to find that the prosecution had to prove mens rea.
The case arose from charges against Michael Joseph Leneghan and Patrick McHugh, described in the judgment as farmers from Ballycroy, County Mayo. Each was charged over alleged grazing on 2 May 2007 at Tarsaghaun More, within the Owenduff/Nephin special protection area. The summons alleged that nine sheep and 10 lambs were grazed above the recommended density and period without the Minister’s prior consent.
At trial, the District Judge found that sheep and lambs had been observed grazing on the specified lands, that the land was within the protected area, that the animals belonged to the respondents, and that no consent had been obtained. After the prosecution case, the respondents’ solicitor said they would not call evidence and argued that the prosecution had to prove intention. The District Judge accepted that the presumption of mens rea had not been displaced and dismissed the charges because no evidence of intention had been given.
The Minister argued on appeal that requiring proof of intent would make the regulations largely ineffective, since it would be difficult to prove that a farmer intended livestock to graze on protected land. The respondents argued that the regulation’s wording required mens rea and that strict liability was not necessary for the law to work.
The High Court considered the presumption that criminal offences require mens rea and the factors relevant to displacing it. It concluded that the regulations served an important environmental regulatory purpose, that proving intent would make enforcement impracticable, and that the prohibited conduct was clearly defined and compliance presented no serious difficulty.
The ruling determined the legal question referred in the case stated. The judgment does not record a further decision on the respondents’ charges after the High Court’s answer.