LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-O'Grady (1987) - Intoxicated Mistaken Self-Defence
Key Legal Principle: There is no distinct defence of "intoxicated mistaken self-defence" in English law.
Factual Summary:
  • Defendant (D): O'Grady
  • Action: Killed a friend.
  • Circumstances: D was heavily intoxicated and believed his friend was attacking him. He responded with what he thought were minor blows in self-defence.
  • Charge: Convicted of manslaughter.
  • Defence Pleaded: Intoxicated mistaken self-defence.
Court's Decision (Held):
  • The court explicitly ruled that no such defence exists, regardless of whether the crime charged requires basic or specific intent.
  • Crucial Distinction: The issue of mistake must be considered separately from intent and intoxication.
  • Impact of Voluntary Intoxication on Mistake: If a defendant's mistaken belief that force was necessary for self-defence was induced by voluntary intoxication, then the defence of self-defence will fail.
Implications for Understanding Self-Defence and Intoxication:
  • Voluntary intoxication generally cannot be used to negate mens rea (guilty mind) for basic intent crimes.
  • While intoxication can be relevant to negating specific intent for specific intent crimes, it does not create a special defence when that intoxication leads to a mistaken belief about the need for self-defence.
  • The law prioritizes the principle that individuals are responsible for their actions, even when intoxicated, especially if that intoxication leads to a harmful mistake regarding the use of force.
Key Takeaway for Study:
  • When analyzing self-defence cases involving intoxication, always assess:
    1. Was the defendant's mistake about the need for force induced by voluntary intoxication?
    2. If so, the defence of self-defence will be unsuccessful, as per O'Grady.
    3. Remember that the court will not recognize "intoxicated mistaken self-defence" as a valid legal argument.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-O'Connor (1991) - Self-Induced Intoxication and Self-Defence
Key Legal Principle: This case clarifies the intersection of self-induced intoxication and the defense of self-defence, particularly in the context of a mistaken belief.
Facts of the Case:
  • Defendant (D): Had consumed a significant amount of alcohol.
  • Victim (V): Killed by D during an argument.
  • Charge: Murder.
  • D's Claim: Acted in self-defence, believing it was necessary to use force.
Court's Ruling (Held):
  1. Self-Defence and Mistaken Belief (due to Intoxication):
    • If a defendant, due to self-induced intoxication, mistakenly believes they are acting in self-defence, the plea of self-defence must fail.
    • This ruling reaffirms the principle established in O'Grady.
    • Implication for Jury Direction: The judge is not required to direct the jury on intoxication as it relates to the validity of the self-defence claim itself.
  2. Intoxication and Specific Intent:
    • Despite the above, the judge should have directed the jury on intoxication as it pertained to the defendant's ability to form specific intent.
    • Specific Intent Crimes (e.g., Murder): For crimes requiring a specific intent (like murder, where the prosecution must prove an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm), intoxication can be relevant. If intoxication prevents the defendant from forming that specific intent, they may not be guilty of the specific intent crime, though they might be guilty of a lesser, basic intent crime (e.g., manslaughter).
Why this is important for your studies:
  • Distinguishes between different effects of intoxication: It's crucial to understand that self-induced intoxication has different legal implications depending on what it affects:
    • Mistaken Belief for Self-Defence: This is not a valid defence if caused by self-induced intoxication.
    • Ability to Form Specific Intent: This can negate the specific intent required for certain crimes.
  • Relevance of O'Grady: O'Connor reinforces the principle from O'Grady regarding self-induced intoxication and mistaken self-defence.
  • Jury Directions: Understand when a judge must direct a jury on intoxication and when they do not (specifically concerning self-defence based on intoxicated mistake).
  • Key takeaway: Self-induced intoxication is generally not a shield for mistaken self-defence, but it can be relevant in determining if a defendant possessed the necessary specific intent for certain serious crimes like murder.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Kellett (1994)- Voluntary Intoxication and Mens Rea
This study guide focuses on the key legal principles established and reinforced by the case of Kellett (1994) regarding voluntary intoxication as a defense and the concept of mens rea.


Case Summary: Kellett (1994)
  • Facts: The defendant (D) owned a pit bull terrier. While D was intoxicated, her dog escaped her flat and was found in a public place without a lead or muzzle.
  • Charge: D was charged under Section 1(7) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
  • Defense Argument: D argued that because she was intoxicated, she did not "allow" her dog to be in a public place.
  • Prosecution Argument (on appeal): The prosecution contended that D could not use the defense of voluntary intoxication. They argued that the word "allow" implies an element of mens rea, making the offense one of basic intent.
  • Court's Decision (Held):
    • The word "allow" does import an element of mens rea.
    • A person cannot "allow" something if they are unaware of it or cannot prevent it.
    • Therefore, the offense in question was determined to be one of basic intent.
    • Consequently, D was unable to plead the defense of voluntary intoxication.


Key Legal Principles
  1. Mens Rea and the Word "Allow":
    • The court clarified that for an individual to "allow" something to happen, there must be an element of conscious permission, knowledge, or at least the ability to prevent it. This mental element constitutes mens rea.
    • This means that simply being the owner is not enough; there must be some fault on the part of the owner in "allowing" the situation to occur.
  2. Voluntary Intoxication as a Defense:
    • The case confirms a fundamental principle in criminal law: voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to crimes of basic intent.
    • If an offense requires only basic intent (i.e., the mens rea is satisfied by an intention to perform the physical act, even if foresight of the consequences is impaired by intoxication), then voluntary intoxication cannot negate that intent.
  3. Distinction Between Basic and Specific Intent (Implied):
    • While not explicitly discussed in detail, the ruling on "basic intent" implicitly contrasts it with "specific intent."
    • Basic Intent: The mens rea is simply the intention to commit the act itself, or recklessness as to its consequences. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense.
    • Specific Intent: The mens rea requires an intention to achieve a particular result beyond the act itself (e.g., intent to cause grievous bodily harm, intent to permanently deprive). Voluntary intoxication can be a defense if it prevents the formation of that specific intent. (Note: Kellett focuses on basic intent).


Prominent Crimes of Basic Intent
The case notes several common crimes that are typically classified as offenses of basic intent. This list is important for understanding the scope of the voluntary intoxication rule:
  • Manslaughter
  • Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (Section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (Section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • Rape
  • Indecent Assault
  • Common Assault
  • Criminal Damage
  • Deception Offenses


Application and Understanding
  • Why was the defense rejected in Kellett? Because the offense, due to the word "allow" implying a basic mens rea, was considered one of basic intent. Voluntary intoxication cannot negate the mens rea required for basic intent offenses.
  • How does this impact other cases? If you encounter an offense where the mens rea is basic intent, and the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated, it is highly unlikely that intoxication will serve as a successful defense.
  • What should you look for? When analyzing a case involving intoxication, identify:
    1. The specific mens rea required for the offense.
    2. Whether that mens rea falls under basic or specific intent.
    3. Whether the intoxication was voluntary.


This case is crucial for understanding the interplay between mens rea, different categories of criminal intent, and the limited scope of the voluntary intoxication defense in English criminal law.


Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Elitestone Ltd v Morris (1997) HL: Fixtures vs. Chattels
This case is a landmark decision in property law, establishing key principles for determining whether an object is a fixture (part of the land/realty) or a chattel (personal property). Understanding this distinction is crucial as it impacts property ownership, tenancy rights, and conveyancing.


I. Case Citation:
  • Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] UKHL 15; [1997] 1 WLR 687; [1997] 2 All ER 513


II. Core Principle:
  • The same tests apply when deciding whether a structure is part of the realty (land).


III. Factual Summary:
  • Parties: Elitestone Ltd (land freehold owners) vs. Morris (occupier of a bungalow).
  • Context: Elitestone Ltd sought possession of land for redevelopment.
  • Morris's Claim: Morris argued he was a protected tenant under the Rent Act 1977, paying an annual "licence" fee for his bungalow as his residence. This required the bungalow to be part of the realty.
  • The Object in Question: A bungalow/chalet resting by its own weight on concrete pillars.
  • Central Question: Was the bungalow realty (part of the land) or a chattel (personal property)?
    • If a chattel, Morris could not be a protected tenant.


IV. Procedural History:
  • First Instance: Assistant Recorder found in favour of Morris (bungalow was realty).
  • Court of Appeal: Allowed Elitestone Ltd's appeal, ruling the bungalow was a chattel, relying on Deen v Andrews (a greenhouse was held to be a chattel).
  • House of Lords: Morris appealed to the House of Lords.


V. House of Lords Decision:
  • Outcome: Unanimously held that the bungalow was realty.
  • Reasoning (Lord Lloyd):
    • Distinguished from Deen v Andrews and other portable structures (e.g., Portakabin, mobile home).
    • Key Factor: The nature of the structure prevented it from being taken down and re-erected elsewhere. It could only be removed by demolition.
    • Inference of Purpose: This inherent immobility led to a "strong inference that the purpose of placing the structure on the original site was that it should form part of the realty of that site, and therefore cease to be a chattel."


VI. Key Deciding Factor (from Comment):
  • Degree of Difficulty in Severance: The degree of difficulty involved in severing the item from the realty was the crucial determining factor.


VII. Illustrative Comparisons (from Comment):
  • TSB Bank plc v Botham (1997):
    • Fixtures: Bath taps and kitchen units (difficult to remove without damage, intended to be permanent).
    • Chattels: Gas fires and carpets (easily removable, not integral to the structure).
  • Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co v Pope (2000):
    • Chattel: A houseboat that floated for half the day and rested on the riverbed for the other half was deemed not to be part of the realty, as it was not permanently affixed.


VIII. Study Questions:
  1. What was the core legal question in Elitestone v Morris?
  2. Why was the distinction between a fixture and a chattel so important for Morris's case?
  3. What was Lord Lloyd's primary reason for distinguishing the bungalow from a "Portakabin" or "mobile home"?
  4. According to the "Comment" section, what is the overarching factor that dictates whether an item is a fixture or a chattel?
  5. How do the examples from TSB Bank plc v Botham and Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co v Pope further illustrate the principle established in Elitestone v Morris?
  6. Imagine you are advising someone who has placed a new shed in their garden. What questions would you ask them to determine if it's a fixture or a chattel, based on the principles from this case?
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Taylor v Hamer (2002): Fixtures and Fraudulent Concealment
Key Legal Principle: The general rule for determining whether an item is a fixture or part of the land is at the time of exchange of contracts, unless there has been deliberate concealment.


Case Summary: Taylor v Hamer (2002)
1. Facts of the Case:
  • Parties: Taylor (T - prospective buyer) and Hamer (H - seller).
  • Property: Eastington Hall Estate, which included a "dog garden" paved with old flagstones.
  • Key Event: After T agreed to purchase but before exchange of contracts, H removed the flagstones from the dog garden, stacked them outside the property's boundary, and then took them away entirely. The dog garden was subsequently turfed over.
  • Pre-Contractual Inquiry: T's solicitor noticed the flagstones and asked H whether they had been removed from the property.
  • H's Response (via solicitor): H's solicitor falsely stated that the flagstones had not been removed from the property and were not included in the sale anyway.
  • T's Claim: T sought replacement of the flagstones, citing a pre-contractual agreement.
  • H's Defense: H relied on:
    • Clause 8(1) of the contract: "the buyer is deemed to have inspected the property whether or not the buyer has in fact done so."
    • Condition 3.2.1 of the National Conditions of Sale: "the buyer accepts the property in its physical state at the date of the contract."
2. Initial Judgment (Trial Court):
  • Contract Claim: The judge found no claim in contract due to Condition 3.2.1 (property accepted in its state at contract date).
  • Tort Claim: However, the judge found H liable in the tort of deceit due to the false statements made by her solicitor.
  • Award: T was awarded the cost of replacement flagstones, but not the cost of restoring and relaying the original type.
3. Court of Appeal Decision (T's Appeal):
  • Majority Decision (allowing T's appeal):
    • Found that T should be entitled to claim in contract.
    • Concluded that the flagstones were part of the land and should have been expressly excluded from the sale by H.
    • Crucially, the removal of the flagstones was considered deliberately and fraudulently concealed.
    • Therefore, the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) did not apply.
    • T was entitled to restoration of the flagstones (implying the original type, not just replacement).
    • Rationale: The majority focused on "the law ought to give the purchaser what he thought he was getting," based on the purchaser's "reasonable belief" and "common decency."
  • Dissenting Opinion (Arden LJ):
    • Argued that "the contract should be interpreted at the date of exchange."
    • Believed this view was more in accordance with legal principle.


Key Takeaways and Study Points:
  • Fixtures vs. Chattels: This case highlights the importance of clearly defining what is included in a property sale. Items permanently affixed to the land are generally considered fixtures and part of the sale, unless explicitly excluded.
  • Time of Assessment: The default rule is that the status of an item (fixture or chattel) is assessed at the time of exchange of contracts.
  • Exception: Deliberate/Fraudulent Concealment: This case establishes a critical exception. If a seller deliberately removes an item that was previously a fixture and fraudulently conceals this removal (or makes false representations about it), the "time of exchange of contracts" rule may be overridden.
  • Impact of Caveat Emptor: The principle of "buyer beware" is generally strong in property transactions. However, it does not protect a seller who engages in fraudulent concealment.
  • Importance of Express Exclusion: If a seller intends to remove a fixture, it must be expressly excluded from the sale agreement in writing.
  • Remedies for Fraud: This case demonstrates that fraudulent misrepresentation can lead to remedies beyond mere contractual damages, potentially including restoration of what was lost.
  • Contractual Clauses vs. Fraud: Standard contractual clauses like "buyer deemed to have inspected" or "property accepted in physical state at contract date" may not shield a seller from liability where there has been deliberate fraud.
  • Practical Implications:
    • Buyers: Be vigilant during inspections. If something seems to have changed or is missing, inquire thoroughly. Document all communications.
    • Sellers: Do not remove fixtures without clear agreement and disclosure. Honesty and transparency are paramount, as fraudulent concealment can have severe legal consequences.


Reference: John Murdoch (2002) 37 EG 153


Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Caldwell (1982) HL: Study Guide
This case is a landmark decision in English criminal law, particularly concerning the defense of intoxication and its interaction with different types of criminal intent.


I. Case Summary
  • Defendant (D): Quarreled with his employer (hotel owner).
  • Action: Got drunk and set fire to the occupied hotel.
  • Charges:
    1. Intentionally or recklessly causing criminal damage (pleaded guilty).
    2. Causing criminal damage with intent to or being reckless as to whether lives are endangered (This is the key charge for our study).
  • Defense Raised: Intoxication.


II. Key Legal Principles & Outcome
The House of Lords established crucial distinctions regarding intoxication as a defense:
  1. Intoxication as a Defense:
    • Specific Intent Crimes: Intoxication can be a defense if it prevents the defendant from forming the necessary specific intent. These are crimes where the prosecution must prove a particular ulterior purpose beyond the act itself (e.g., murder requires intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm).
    • Basic Intent Crimes: Intoxication is not a defense to crimes that can be committed recklessly. These are crimes where the mens rea (guilty mind) aligns with the actus reus (guilty act) and does not require an ulterior motive (e.g., assault, unlawful act manslaughter).
  2. Classification of the Offence in Question:
    • The offense under Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (causing criminal damage with intent to or being reckless as to whether lives are endangered) was classified as a basic intent crime.
    • Reasoning: Because recklessness is a sufficient mens rea for this offense, intoxication cannot be used as a defense to negate that recklessness.
  3. Lord Diplock's Insight (Crucial Nuance):
    • Lord Diplock stated that the classification into 'specific' and 'basic' intent crimes becomes irrelevant when the mens rea for the offense is defined as being reckless as to whether a particular harmful consequence will result from one's act.
    • Implication: If an offense explicitly includes "recklessness" as a sufficient mental state, then the debate over specific vs. basic intent largely falls away in the context of intoxication. The fact that the defendant was intoxicated and therefore did not foresee a risk that they would have foreseen if sober was not a defense.


III. Application to Caldwell
  • D was charged with an offense where recklessness regarding the endangerment of lives was a sufficient mens rea.
  • Since this is a basic intent crime (or, as Diplock highlights, an offense where recklessness is sufficient), D's intoxication could not negate the necessary mens rea for this charge.
  • Therefore, the defense of intoxication failed for the charge under Section 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971.


IV. Importance for Your Study
  • Understanding the Distinction: Crucially distinguish between specific intent and basic intent crimes in the context of intoxication.
  • Impact of Recklessness: Recognize that if an offense explicitly allows for recklessness as a mens rea, intoxication generally cannot be used as a defense to that recklessness. The law essentially imputes the knowledge of the risk to the intoxicated individual if a sober person would have recognized it.
  • Statutory Context: Be aware of the specific legislation involved (Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(2)) as an example of a basic intent crime.
Note: While Caldwell's definition of recklessness has been superseded by the subjective test in R v G and Another (2003), the principles regarding intoxication and the specific/basic intent distinction remain highly relevant for many offenses. This case is fundamental to understanding the limitations of the intoxication defense in criminal law.


Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Fotheringham (1989) CA
Key Legal Concepts:
  • Rape: Unlawful sexual intercourse with a person without their consent.
  • Mens Rea: The mental state required for a crime to be committed (e.g., intent, recklessness).
  • Actus Reus: The physical act of committing a crime.
  • Basic Intent Crime: A crime where the mens rea only requires an intention to commit the actus reus, or recklessness as to the consequences of the actus reus. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence for basic intent crimes.
  • Specific Intent Crime: A crime where the mens rea requires an intention to achieve a specific result beyond the actus reus. Voluntary intoxication can sometimes be a defence for specific intent crimes if it negates the specific intent.
  • Voluntary Intoxication: Self-induced intoxication, typically by alcohol or drugs.
Facts of the Case:
  • Defendant (D): The accused.
  • Victim (V): A 14-year-old babysitter.
  • D and his wife left V to babysit their children.
  • D's wife instructed V to sleep in their matrimonial bed.
  • Upon D and his wife's return, D entered the bed and had sexual intercourse with V without her consent.
  • D's Defence: Claimed he was drunk and mistakenly believed V was his wife.
  • Trial Judge's Direction: Instructed the jury to disregard D's voluntary intoxication when assessing whether his belief that V was a consenting woman (his wife) was reasonable.
  • Outcome at Trial: D was convicted of rape.
Legal Issue on Appeal:
  • Could D use his voluntary intoxication as a defence to argue that his belief in V's consent was reasonable, thereby negating the mens rea for rape?
Court of Appeal (CA) Ruling:
  • Held: D's voluntary intoxication was not a defence.
  • Reasoning:
    • Rape is classified as a basic intent crime.
    • For rape, the mens rea only requires recklessness as to the victim's consent. This means the defendant foresaw a risk that the victim was not consenting but took that risk anyway, or simply failed to consider whether the victim was consenting when a reasonable person would have.
    • Since rape is a basic intent crime, voluntary intoxication cannot be used to negate the mens rea.
    • Therefore, D's argument that his intoxication led him to reasonably believe V was consenting was rejected. The judge's direction to the jury was upheld.
Key Takeaways for Study:
  1. Voluntary Intoxication and Basic vs. Specific Intent: This case is a prime example of the principle that voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence for basic intent crimes.
  2. Rape as a Basic Intent Crime: Understand that the mens rea for rape primarily involves recklessness as to consent, making it a basic intent offense.
  3. Irrelevance of Drunken Mistake for Basic Intent: Even if intoxication leads to a genuine mistake about a crucial element of the crime (like consent in this case), if the crime is one of basic intent, that mistake, if induced by voluntary intoxication, will not serve as a defence. The law holds individuals accountable for actions committed while voluntarily intoxicated in basic intent crimes.
Picture
Published on

KembaraXtra-Case Law- C (1992) CA - Indecent Assault and Voluntary Intoxication
C (1992) CA - Voluntary Intoxication and Indecent Assault
​ This study guide summarizes the key legal principles from the case of C (1992) CA concerning voluntary intoxication as a defense to indecent assault.
I. Case Background:
  • Defendant (D): C
  • Action: Inserted fingers into a child's vagina while voluntarily intoxicated.
  • Charge: Indecent Assault.
  • Defense Claim: Could not remember the offense due to drunkenness.
II. Trial Court Ruling:
  • Judge's Instruction: Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to indecent assault; jury should disregard D's claim of not remembering.
  • Outcome: D was convicted.
III. Grounds for Appeal:
  • Appellant's Argument: Based on a previous High Court decision (referred to as "Court" in the text), indecent assault is now a "specific intent crime." Therefore, voluntary intoxication, which can negate specific intent, should be a valid defense.
IV. Court of Appeal (CA) Decision - Key Legal Principles:
The Court of Appeal distinguished the present case from the High Court decision cited by the appellant.
  • Distinction of Previous "Court" Decision:
    • The High Court decision concerned situations where the indecency of the defendant's actions was ambiguous.
    • In such ambiguous cases, the jury had to consider the defendant's intention (i.e., whether they intended to commit an indecent act).
  • Application to C (1992) CA:
    • In the present case, there was no ambiguity regarding the indecency of the assault. The act itself (inserting fingers into a child's vagina) was inherently and unequivocally indecent.
    • Therefore, there was no requirement to consider D's specific intention regarding the indecency of the act.
  • Nature of Indecent Assault (Post-High Court Decision):
    • The High Court decision did not change the fundamental nature of indecent assault in clear-cut cases of indecency.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher (1995) CA
This case is a landmark decision concerning the ownership of chattels found in land. It clarifies the general principle that a landowner typically has superior title to objects found embedded in their land, even against the finder.


Case Name: Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher (1995) CA


Key Legal Principle:
When a chattel is found in the land (as opposed to on the land), the landowner will usually have superior title to the finder.


Facts of the Case:
  1. Plaintiff: Waverley Borough Council (landowner).
  2. Defendant: Mr. Fletcher (finder).
  3. Discovery: Mr. Fletcher, using a metal detector, found a medieval gold brooch buried in the ground of a public park owned by the Council.
  4. Nature of Discovery: The brooch was not treasure trove as there was no indication it was buried with an intention to reclaim it.
  5. Finder's Status: The Council had banned metal detecting in its parks. Therefore, Mr. Fletcher was engaging in a prohibited activity, rendering him a trespasser in relation to the act of digging for the brooch.
  6. Initial Claim: Mr. Fletcher claimed ownership of the brooch.
  7. Council's Contention: The Council disputed Mr. Fletcher's claim, arguing their superior title due to the brooch being found in their land and Mr. Fletcher's unauthorized activity.
  8. First Instance Decision: The initial judge applied Parker v British Airways Board (a case concerning objects found on land) and ruled in favor of Mr. Fletcher.
  9. Appeal: The Council appealed this decision.


Court of Appeal Decision:
  • Appeal Allowed: The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision.
  • Crucial Distinction: The Court emphasized the distinction between an object found in the land and an object found on the land.
  • Rationale:
    • Since the brooch was found in the ground, the Council, as the landowner, held a prior and superior title to it.
    • Mr. Fletcher could only claim superior title if he had been given permission by the Council to detect and excavate (dig up) the object.
    • As Mr. Fletcher had no such permission (and was, in fact, engaging in a prohibited activity), ownership of the brooch remained with the Council.


Comparison with Parker v British Airways Board (Distinction to note):
  • Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher primarily concerns objects found in the land.
  • Parker v British Airways Board primarily concerns objects found on the land.
  • The legal principles applied differ significantly based on whether the object is embedded in the soil or merely lying on its surface.


Key Takeaways for Study:
  1. Location is Paramount: The physical location of the found object (in the land vs. on the land) is the primary determinant of ownership.
  2. Landowner's Strong Position: Landowners have a very strong claim to objects found embedded within their land.
  3. Permission is Critical for Finders: A finder's claim to an object found in land is significantly weakened (or nullified) if they lacked permission to be excavating or were engaging in prohibited activities.
  4. Trespass: While not the sole reason for the Council's win, the unauthorized nature of Mr. Fletcher's activity reinforced the Council's superior title. It highlights that unauthorized excavation will not grant a finder superior rights.
Picture

Author

Learn the fact about law