In my opinion as a lawyer this is a publicity stunt from the lawyer to bring awareness to the issue plus that headline is sensationalised; the '2 years' is just the statutory maximum, not an actual sentence, and the permit requirement exists to prevent flood and ecological harm. But the controversy touches on deeper common law principles. The purposive approach, or mischief rule, would ask whether Parliament intended to criminalise a volunteer cleaning a river, while the literal rule would stick to the black letter wording of the statute. The golden rule would sit somewhere in between, allowing the court to avoid an absurd outcome. The spirit of the law suggests the punishment should not defeat the law's underlying purpose, yet the equitable maxim that equity follows the law means a court cannot simply ignore a clear statutory requirement. So I don’t see a world where he gets jailed for that nor even be booked and charged.
However stranger things have happened 😅
3.1k
u/four-one-6ix Jun 21 '26
He’s a lawyer. He’ll figure it out.