21-No fault and strict liability

Question 1

What is a strict liability offence?

Answer 1

An offence where no mens rea is required

Question 2

An offence where no mens rea is required.

What is this a definition of?

Answer 2

Strict liability offence

Question 3

What case is an example of a strict liability offence?

Answer 3

Pharma Society of GB v Storkwain (1986)

Facts: D had provided drugs on prescription which turned out to be forged. D charged under Medicines Act 1968.

Question 4

Pharma Society of GB v Storkwain (1986)

What is this case an example of?

Answer 4

A strict liability offence

Facts: D had provided drugs on prescription which turned out to be forged. D charged under Medicines Act 1968.

Question 5

What is meant by an absolute liability offence?

Answer 5

1) there is no requirement for mens rea

2) there is no need to prove that D’s actus reus was voluntary

Question 6

1) there is no requirement for mens rea
2) there is no need to prove that D’s actus reus was voluntary

What is this a definition of?

Answer 6

An offence of absolute liability

Question 7

What case demonstrates an occasion of ‘absolute liability’?

Answer 7

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Facts: D wasn’t allowed in UK and chose to go to Ireland-Ireland deported her against her will to the UK and she was immediately arrested and found guilty of being an alien.

Question 8

R v Larsonneur (1933)

What does this case demonstrate regarding strict liability offences?

Answer 8

An example of ‘absolute liability’.

Facts: D wasn’t allowed in UK and chose to go to Ireland-Ireland deported her against her will to the UK and she was immediately arrested and found guilty of being an alien.

Question 9

What case demonstrates that a court only has to decide that part of the actus reus doesn’t require a mens rea then that can constitute a strict liability offence?

Answer 9

R v Prince (1875)

Facts: Prince knew the girl he ‘took’ was in the possession of her father but believed on reasonable grounds that she was 18. The fact he did not know her age was irrelevant-he took possession of the girl unlawfully.

Question 10

R v Prince (1875)

What does this case demonstrate regarding strict liability offences?

Answer 10

That a court only has to decide that a part of an actus reus does not require mens rea for there to have been a strict liability offence.

Facts: Prince knew the girl he ‘took’ was in the possession of her father but believed on reasonable grounds that she was 18. The fact he did not know her age was irrelevant-he took possession of the girl unlawfully.

Question 11

What case is an example of a ‘no fault’ offence?

Answer 11

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Facts: Butcher asks vet to examine a carcass is fit to eat and the vet assures him it is but it isn’t. The butcher offers it for sale and is found guilty of offering meat not fit for human consumption.

Question 12

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

What does this case demonstrate regarding strict liability?

Answer 12

An example of a ‘no fault’ offence.

Facts: Butcher asks vet to examine a carcass is fit to eat and the vet assures him it is but it isn’t. The butcher offers it for sale and is found guilty of offering meat not fit for human consumption.

Question 13

What is meant by a ‘no fault’ offence?

Answer 13

When a D is totally blameless in respect of the consequence of their voluntary action.

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Question 14

What is meant by ‘due diligence’ regarding strict liability?

Answer 14

Where the D has done all that was within his power not to commit the offence.

Question 15

Where the D has done all that was within his power not to commit the offence.

What is this a definition of regarding strict liability?

Answer 15

‘Due diligence’

Question 16

What are the only common law offences which are strict liability?

Answer 16

1) Public nuisance
2) Criminal libel
3) Outraging public decency

Question 17

What case shows that where a statute does not mention mens rea, the judges will start by presuming that the offences require mens rea?

Answer 17

Sweet v Parsley (1969)

Facts: D rented out a farmhouse to students who, unbeknownst to D, were growing cannabis. D’s conviction of managing a facility where cannabis is smoked was quashed as the statute was silent regarding mens rea.

Question 18

Sweet v Parsley (1969)

What does this case demonstrate regarding strict liability?

Answer 18

That if a statute does not mention mens rea of an offence it is assumed there is a mens rea required.

Facts: D rented out a farmhouse to students who, unbeknownst to D, were growing cannabis. D’s conviction of managing a facility where cannabis is smoked was quashed as the statute was silent regarding mens rea.

Question 19

What case demonstrates that when an offence carries a penalty of imprisonment it is more likely to be considered ‘truly criminal’ and therefore not a strict liability offence?

Answer 19

B v DPP (2000)

Facts: D asked a girl who he thought was over 14 to give him oral sex but it was found as it carried a 2 year prison sentence that it could not be an offence of strict liability.

Question 20

B v DPP (2000)

What does this case demonstrate regarding strict liability?

Answer 20

That a penalty of imprisonment for an offence is usually (but not always) interpreted as requiring a mens rea.

Facts: D asked a girl who he thought was over 14 to give him oral sex but it was found as it carried a 2 year prison sentence that it could not be an offence of strict liability.