Criminal lawyers generally work for people who are accused of felonies such as murder, assault, family violence, embezzlement, etc. We owe a debt of gratitude to the framers of our Constitution for limiting (as least on paper) the power of our government, and the politicians and bureaucrats who run it. This pseudo secular intellectual is wrong in the sense that what he calls second Republic started with the rise of Indira Gandhi, who concentrated power in herself and family. It was being consolidated by Sanjay, but was cut short by his untimely murder by those who benefited. BJP is not concentrating power in single hand, like Congress. In rem: (Latin: against the thing) In rem rights relate to property and are not based on any personal relationship. There are a number of differences between criminal and civil law. These differences include the following. Many social movement analysts would tell you that social justice groups, movements for taking the squares, Occupy , all of these big movements in recent years have been anarchistic. Occupy in particular, insofar as Wall Street kickstarted a global movement, had anarchists directly involved in it, including David Graeber. There are many of those fragmented social groups, but anarchism is also made of the people who take the opportunities as they see them: squatters’ movements, precarious workers, indigenous people, no-border movements, feminists, etc. I would say that today anarchism is the animating force, in the way that when I was an undergraduate, Marxism was the animating force. The ideas of leaderlessness , mutual aid, horizontalism, are standards of most forms of activism these days, and they come from an anarchist inspiration. 39. The argument in this appeal was very largely directed to the issue of mens rea: what state of mind must be proved against a defendant to convict him of causing a public nuisance? The Crown contended that the correct test was that laid down by the Court of Appeal in R v Shorrock 1994 QB 279, 289, that the defendant is responsible for a nuisance which he knew, or ought to have known (because the means of knowledge were available to him), would be the consequence of what he did or omitted to do. That was a test clearly satisfied on the facts of that case, where the defendant deliberately permitted use of his field and should have known what the result would be. It is a test satisfied, I think, in all the public nuisance authorities considered above, save those based on vicarious liability (which are hard to reconcile with the modern approach to that subject in cases potentially involving the severest penalties, and may well be explained, as Mellor J did in R v Stephens (1866) LR 1 QB 702, 708-709, by the civil colour of the proceedings). I would accept this as the correct test, but it is a test to be applied to the correct facts.