Section 341 — Resource Management Act 1991: Strict liability and defences
Text of the provision Official document
341 Strict liability and defences (1) In any prosecution for an offence of contravening or permitting a contravention of any of sections 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , and 15 , it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offence. (2) Subject to subsection (3) , it is a defence to prosecution of the kind referred to in subsection (1) , if the defendant proves— (a) That— (i) The action or event to which the prosecution relates was necessary for the purposes of saving or protecting life or health, or preventing serious damage to property or avoiding an actual or likely adverse effect on the environment; and (ii) The conduct of the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances; and (iii) The effects of the action or event were adequately mitigated or remedied by the defendant after it occurred; or (b) That the action or event to which the prosecution relates was due to an event beyond the control of the defendant, including natural disaster, mechanical failure, or sabotage, and in each case— (i) The action or event could not reasonably have been foreseen or been provided against by the defendant; and (ii) The effects of the action or event were adequately mitigated or remedied by the defendant after it occurred. (3) Except with the leave of the Court, subsection (2) does not apply unless, within 7 days after the service of the summons or within such further time as the Court may allow, the defendant delivers to the prosecutor a written notice— (a) Stating that he or she intends to rely on subsection (2) ; and (b) Specifying the facts that support his or her reliance on subsection (2) . Subsection (2)(b) was amended, as from 7 July 1993, by section 156 Resource Management Amendment Act 1993 (1993 No 65) by omitting the word “ either ” .
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →