my instructing solicitor did notice one other typographical error in the judgment which we have overlooked.
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: I might say that your fax -- was it last night?
MR GIFFEN: Yes.
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: Led to running around early this morning, as you can imagine. Give me the other amendment because the judgment is still subject to editorial corrections.
MR GIFFEN: It is paragraph 46. The quote from the Statutory Instruments Act says "unless it is proved that at that at".
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: I see, there are too many "that ats".
MR GIFFEN: It must be "unless it is proved at that date".
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: There is a surplus "that at".
MR GIFFEN: The second "that at" should be "date" I think.
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: Yes. Too many "that ats". It should be "that at (the date of the alleged contravention)".
MR GIFFEN: No, it should read "unless it is proved that at that date (the date of the alleged contravention)".
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: I see. So there is a "date" missing.
MR GIFFEN: Instead of the second "that at".
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: Thank you very much. I am always impressed with accurate proof reading. It is a facility which I am incapable of. Unless there is anything else, thank you both for an interesting case and interesting argument. Let us see what the Court of Appeal says.
(Court Adjourned)