Kilbride v. Lake
New Zealand Supreme Court
[1962] NZLR. 590
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Kilbride (defendant) drove his wife’s car into the City of Auckland and left it parked with a current warrant of fitness attached to its windscreen. While Kilbride was gone, the warrant had somehow become detached from the windscreen and was lost. Kilbride could not find the warrant when he returned to the car, but he did find a traffic-offense notice for violating the following traffic regulation: “No person shall permit a motor vehicle to be on a road whether the person operating it is present or not unless there is carried on the vehicle a current warrant of fitness.” Despite the fact that Kilbride made a written statement and demonstrated he had been issued a current warrant of fitness, he was prosecuted and convicted for violating the traffic regulation. Kilbride appealed on the grounds that he lacked the requisite mens rea to be convicted for the crime. Meanwhile, the prosecution argued it did not need to demonstrate mens rea, as this was a strict-liability offense.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Woodhouse, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
