For at least a century and a quarter one of the most settled and invariable maxims of the criminal law, founded upon a decision of 15 judges in the Court for Crown Cases Reserved (Prince (1875) 2 C.C.R. 154; see, also, Robins (1844) 1 C. & K. 456), has been that the prosecution did not have to prove fault on the defendant’s part in respect of the element of age in statutory offences created for the protection of the young. Many statutes have been drafted (or amended), and thousands upon thousands of defendants have been convicted, on this basis. But no longer. For the Appellate Committee has decreed, without giving any reasons for doing so-there is just a bare assertion (B. v. D.P.P. [2000] A.C. 428, reversing a unanimous decision of a strong Divisional Court: [1998] 4 All E.R. 265)—that “an age-related ingredient of a statutory offence stands on no different footing from any other ingredient”, and that proof of fault (in the shape of the absence of a belief-reasonable or unreasonable—that the child is above the proscribed age) is required unless excluded by Parliament either expressly or by “necessary implication, … [that is, by] an implication which is compellingly clear” (Lord Nicholls). “Such an implication”, we are told, “may be found in the language used, the nature of the offence, the mischief sought to be prevented, and any other circumstances which may assist in determining what intention is to be attributed to Parliament when creating the offence” (ibid.). This is, of course, none other than the all too depressingly familiar litany of vague, overlapping criteria which from time out of mind has signally failed to compel from the judges predictable answers to the question whether, when Parliament has been silent on the point, a person must, if she is to be convicted of a given offence, be presumed to have been at fault in respect of all, or some, of its external elements. The reference to a silent legislature’s intention is to a fiction—a mere rhetorical device. There is, as everyone knows, only one sure and compelling guide: the express provision of a no-fault defence logically precludes a requirement to prove fault in regard to the matter to which it refers.

“No oral modification” (NOM) clauses should be enforced in English law. Parties should be permitted to impose formality requirements upon themselves. Entire agreement clauses are (rightly) enforced and this provides a compelling parallel. The reasoning of two Court of Appeal decisions holding NOM clauses unenforceable is critically analysed. The extent to which NOM clauses should be defeasible by estoppel and unfair terms legislation is considered.

IN the Court of Appeal in Patel v Mirza [2014] EWCA Civ 1047; [2015] Ch. 271, Gloster L.J., in sympathy with the “hapless law student”, said of the illegality concept “it is almost impossible to ascertain … principled rules from the authorities relating to the recovery of money or other assets paid or transferred under illegal contracts” (at [47]). The Supreme Court ([2016] UKSC 42; [2016] 3 W.L.R. 399) has clarified the law in many respects. In other respects, it may have created some new uncertainties and no diminution in work for inventive lawyers and some of their more dubious clients.

The following remarks are intended to show that there exists no irreconcilable conflict between C. Just. 3.32.22 and C. Theod. 4.18.1. This is a strictly limited purpose, and the author does not propose to attempt any further conclusions as to the complicated history of the restoration of fruits in the rei vindicatio. It may be well to quote the two texts that form the subject of this article.