Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

*ANEW L-Strict Liability > Absolute& Strict Liability > Flashcards

Absolute& Strict Liability Flashcards

1
Q

Which offences does Strict Liability consider?

A

those where the mens rea is not required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What case is an example of demonstrating strict liability ?

A

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd 1986

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

D supplied drugs on prescriptions which was later found to be forged. No finding D acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. HOL held Divisional Court was right to direct magistrates to convict D.
What case is this?

A

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd 1986

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What happened in the case of Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd 1986

A

D supplied drugs on prescriptions which was later found to be forged. No finding D acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. HOL held Divisional Court was right to direct magistrates to convict D.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is needed for nearly all strict liability offences?

A

the proof of the actus reus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd 1986 what was needed to prove the actus reus of the offence?

A

needed to prove that the chemist had supplied drugs without a genuine prescription

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What needs to be proved with the requirement of actus reus?

A

that the actus reus was voluntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In what situation would the chemist in Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain 1986 not be guilty of supplying drugs without a doctors prescription?

A

If the chemist had been forced at gun point to provide the drug

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the official name for situations whereby D can be found guilty even though they did not do the actus reus voluntarily?

A

crimes of absolute liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does absolute liability mean?

A

this means that no mens rea at all is required for the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Within absolute liability there are ‘status offences’ involved, what is this?

A

This where the actus reus is a state of affairs. and where D is liable because they have ‘been found’ in a certain situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What type of offences are rare?

A

‘status offences’ within absolute liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What 2 conditions must apply to be an absolute liability offence?

A
  • the offence does not require any mens rea

- no need to prove that the defendant’s actus reus was voluntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which 2 cases demonstrate Absolute Liability?

A
  • Larsonneur 1933

- Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

D was termed an ‘alien’ and ordered to leave UK. D went to Eire but irish police deported her back to UK where police arrested her. D did not want to return and was not voluntary. D was found guilty under the Aliens Order.
What case is this?

A

Larsonneur 1933

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What happened in the case of Larsonneur 1933?

A

D was termed an ‘alien’ and ordered to leave UK. D went to Eire but irish police deported her back to UK where police arrested her. D did not want to return and was not voluntary. D was found guilty under the Aliens Order.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What happened in the case of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983

A

D taken to hospital but found only to be drunk. Police took D to the roadway and arrested then charged D with being drunk in a highway.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

D taken to hospital but found only to be drunk. Police took D to the roadway and arrested then charged D with being drunk in a highway.
What case is this?

A

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Which judge in the Divisional Court justified the decision made in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983 pointing out that the particular offence was designed to deal with nuisance caused by being drunk in a public place?

A

Goff LJ

20
Q

For all offences what is the presumption?

A

that mens rea is required

21
Q

What happens if the courts decide that the offence does not require mens rea for at least part of the actus reus?

A

the offence will be one of strict liability

22
Q

Which 2 cases illustrate the idea of not requiring mens rea for part of the offence?

A

Prince 1875

Hibbert 1869

23
Q

What were Ds charged against in both Prince 1875 and Hibbert 1869?

A

charged against taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of possession her father, against his will contrary to s55 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.

24
Q

What happened in the case of Prince 1875?

A

D believed on reasonable grounds the girl he took from the possession of his father was 18. Convicted as he had intention to remove the girl from possession of father. Mens rea was required for part of the actus reus to prove necessary intention. However it was held knowledge of her age was not required, strict liability in this aspect of the offence.

25
Q

D believed on reasonable grounds the girl he took from the possession of his father was 18. Convicted as he had intention to remove the girl from possession of father. Mens rea was required for part of the actus reus to prove necessary intention. However it was held knowledge of her age was not required, strict liability in this aspect of the offence.
What case is this?

A

Prince 1875

26
Q

What happened in the case of Hibbert 1869?

A

D had sex with 14 year old girl. Acquitted of the offence as it was not proved he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. Even though the age aspect of the offence was one of strict liability, the mens rea was required for the removal which he did not have.

27
Q

D had sex with 14 year old girl. Acquitted of the offence as it was not proved he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. Even though the age aspect of the offence was one of strict liability, the mens rea was required for the removal which he did not have.
What case is this?

A

Hibbert 1869

28
Q

The actus reus must be proved and the defendants conduct in doing the actus reus must be voluntary. However when else can a defendant be convicted?

A

if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence.

29
Q

What is a criticism of the fact that a defendant can be convicted if his voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence?

A

the defendant could be totally blameless in respect to the consequence

30
Q

What is an example of a case whereby a defendant could be totally blameless in respect to the consequence?

A

Callow v Tillstone 1900

31
Q

What happened in the case of Callow v Tillstone 1900?

A

A butcher asked a vet to see if a carcass was fit for human consumption. V assumed it was alright to eat. Butcher offered it for sale. Carcass was unfit and butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale. Even though Butcher took reasonable care not to commit the offence, it was still a strict liability offence.

32
Q

A butcher asked a vet to see if a carcass was fit for human consumption. V assumed it was alright to eat. Butcher offered it for sale. Carcass was unfit and butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale. Even though Butcher took reasonable care not to commit the offence, it was still a strict liability offence.
What case is this?

A

Callow v Tillstone 1900

33
Q

What does statute provide some offences?

A

a defence of ‘due diligence’

34
Q

In other words what does the defence of ‘due diligence’ mean?

A

this means that the defendant will not be liable if he can show that he did all that was within his power not to commit the offence

35
Q

What is a main problem with the defence of ‘due diligence’?

A

there does not appear to be a pattern for when Parliament decide to include a’due diligence’ defence and when it does not

36
Q

If ‘due diligence’ was an offence what would the outcome have been in Callow v Tillstone 1990?

A

the butcher would not have been guilty

37
Q

Other than Callow v Tillstone 1900, what is another case which is an example of where the defendants took all reasonable steps to prevent the offence but were still guilty because there was no ‘due diligence’ defence available?

A

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999

38
Q

What happened in the case of Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999?

A

Ds owned a business and repeatedly told staff not to sell lottery tickets to U16’s. One staff sold to 13 year old. Ds were charged with selling the lottery ticket. Magistrates dismissed the charges, prosecution appealed to Divisional Court who held that the case was one of strict liability. Ds found guilty.

39
Q

Ds owned a business and repeatedly told staff not to sell lottery tickets to U16’s. One staff sold to 13 year old. Ds were charged with selling the lottery ticket. Magistrates dismissed the charges, prosecution appealed to Divisional Court who held that the case was one of strict liability. Ds found guilty.
What case is this?

A

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999

40
Q

What is not available in strict liability offences?

A

the defence of mistake

41
Q

What would happen if the defence of mistake was available in a strict liability offence?

A

this would mean that the defendant will be acquitted when he made an honest mistake

42
Q

Which 2 cases illustrate the difference in liability under no defence of mistake?

A
  • Cundy v Le Cocq 1884

- Sherras v De Rutzen 1895

43
Q

What happened in the case of Cundy v Le Cocq 1884?

A

D charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person. Magistrates found as a fact D had not realised they were drunk, as he was quiet in his demeanour. Magistrate convicted D and COA upheld conviction. No defence of mistake.

44
Q

D charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person. Magistrates found as a fact D had not realised they were drunk, as he was quiet in his demeanour. Magistrate convicted D and COA upheld conviction. No defence of mistake.
What case is this?

A

Cundy v Le Cocq 1884

45
Q

What happened in the case of Sherras v De Rutzen 1895?

A

D convicted of supplying alcohol to a constable on duty. An on-duty police officer removed armband then entered the public house. D thought police officer was off duty as no armband. D was convicted by Divisional Court quashed the conviction. Held the case was not one of strict liability, defence of mistake allowed.

46
Q

D convicted of supplying alcohol to a constable on duty. An on-duty police officer removed armband then entered the public house. D thought police officer was off duty as no armband. D was convicted by Divisional Court quashed the conviction. Held the case was not one of strict liability, defence of mistake allowed.
What case is this?

A

Sherras v De Rutzen 1895

47
Q

Where an offence is held to be one of strict liability what 5 points apply briefly?

A
  • D must be proved to have done the actus reus
  • Voluntary act on his part
  • No need to prove mens rea
  • No ‘due diligence’ defence available
  • The defence of mistake is not available

*ANEW L-Strict Liability (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions