I have a client accused of no insurance. He's quite obviously been the victim of a fraudulent website. Frustratingly, police are prosecuting him for no insurance & ignoring the website, which is still up and selling fake insurance to people a year later!!
🫣🫣🫣
What’s the mens rea?
Of no insurance? There isn't one. But, prosecution still needs to be in the public interest & I would have hoped that preventing people being defrauded was a higher priority than prosecuting victims of that fraud.
Client took all reasonable steps to avoid driving without insurance? You could hammer down on what is reasonable given the increasing levels of sophistication in online fraud.
PS: If the website is still up and running, it must be to some extent lucrative. So others are falling for the scam - goes to an objective standard of reasonable?