- Популярные видео
- Авто
- Видео-блоги
- ДТП, аварии
- Для маленьких
- Еда, напитки
- Животные
- Закон и право
- Знаменитости
- Игры
- Искусство
- Комедии
- Красота, мода
- Кулинария, рецепты
- Люди
- Мото
- Музыка
- Мультфильмы
- Наука, технологии
- Новости
- Образование
- Политика
- Праздники
- Приколы
- Природа
- Происшествия
- Путешествия
- Развлечения
- Ржач
- Семья
- Сериалы
- Спорт
- Стиль жизни
- ТВ передачи
- Танцы
- Технологии
- Товары
- Ужасы
- Фильмы
- Шоу-бизнес
- Юмор
Azoeb.net |PSGB v Storkwain Ltd [1986]
PSGB v Storkwain Ltd [1986]
Facts:
The appellant, a pharmacist was convicted of an offence under s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. The appellant had allowed prescription drugs to be supplied on production of fraudulent prescriptions whereby a doctor’s signature had been copied. The appellant was not party to the fraud and had no knowledge of the forged signatures and believed the prescriptions were genuine.
Held:
The offence was one of strict liability and the conviction was upheld. The House of Lords looked at other sections of the Medicines Act 1968 and found that some sections referred to a requirement of mens rea whereas other sections did not. They concluded that the omission to refer to mens rea in s.58 must therefore have been deliberate and so the presumption of mens rea was rebutted.
Видео Azoeb.net |PSGB v Storkwain Ltd [1986] канала Law Case Note's
Facts:
The appellant, a pharmacist was convicted of an offence under s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. The appellant had allowed prescription drugs to be supplied on production of fraudulent prescriptions whereby a doctor’s signature had been copied. The appellant was not party to the fraud and had no knowledge of the forged signatures and believed the prescriptions were genuine.
Held:
The offence was one of strict liability and the conviction was upheld. The House of Lords looked at other sections of the Medicines Act 1968 and found that some sections referred to a requirement of mens rea whereas other sections did not. They concluded that the omission to refer to mens rea in s.58 must therefore have been deliberate and so the presumption of mens rea was rebutted.
Видео Azoeb.net |PSGB v Storkwain Ltd [1986] канала Law Case Note's
Комментарии отсутствуют
Информация о видео
10 апреля 2023 г. 15:48:07
00:01:11
Другие видео канала

![Azoeb.net |R v Gomez [1993] AC 442](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uVG2L8IEdXo/default.jpg)

![Azoeb.net |Donnelly v Jackman [1970] 1 All ER 987](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ber8qyXFe84/default.jpg)

![Azoeb.net | Combe v Combe [1951]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1X0ZTDUAuXo/default.jpg)
![BS & N Ltd v Micado Shipping Ltd (The ‘Seaflower’) [2001]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8jZ0J0Ru6-c/default.jpg)



![Azoeb.net |R v Keane [2010] EWCA Crim 2514 Court of Appeal](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ey0iaXYX97g/default.jpg)




![Azoeb.net |R v Inglis [2011]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y5gJ8aTqjA8/default.jpg)

![Azoeb.net |B v DPP [2000] 2 AC 428 House of Lords](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CLqKdSYbB_c/default.jpg)
![Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rJfXAWPVRyM/default.jpg)

