Criminal Law- Booklet 1- Strict Liability Flashcards
Strict Liability
A category of offences where no means rea is needed. A defendant who did not intent to commit a crime is still guilty, no matter how careful they tried to be.
Callow v Tillstone – def. guilty of selling unfit meat even though he took all reasonable precautions
Tend to be: food hygiene, parking offences + polluting environment
Parliament doesn’t always make it clear if mens rea is needed or not (‘knowingly, ‘recklessly’, ‘intentionally’ all indicate mens rea) so sometimes judges have to decide – Pharmaceutical Society v Storkwain – def. breached s.58 of Medicines Act by issuing a prescription-only drug for a well forged prescription unknowingly. Yet wording of s.58 was strict liability, so guilty
Therefore, judges start with presumption mens rea is needed (Gammon) and consider 4 factors (Gammon Factors) to confirm/contradict
Absolute liability
Require actus reus but not concerned with whether the actus reus was voluntary (i.e. controlled by the def.)
R v Larsonneur - French national
Winzar v CC Kent – drunk on highway
Gammon Factors
**Gammon v Attorney General **– judges always presume mens rea is needed. 4 Factors:
1) Is the offence regulatory or a true crime?
If regulatory (no moral issue, minor) likely strict liability. Sweet v Parsley– Ms Sweet charged for managing property containing cannabis unknowingly- appealed- Lord Reid said strict liability only appropriate for ‘quasi-crimes’ where no real moral issue was involved.
Also B v DPP - 15 yo asked 13 yo for oral sex, thinking she was older, this was a ‘true crime’ and so required mens rea
2) Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern?
e.g. alcohol, drugs, pollution. Can promote extra vigilance
Harrow v Shah - sold lottery ticket to under 16, still guilty
R v Deyemi - def. had an electrical stun-gun, thought it was a torch- it’s strict liability under s.5 of Firearms Act
3) Did Parliament intend to create an offence of strict liability by using certain words in a statute?
‘MR’ words = ‘intentionally’, ‘knowingly’, ‘recklessly’
SL words = ‘possesion’, ‘cause’
Cundy v Le Cocq – sold alcohol to an intoxicated person, violating S.13 of Licensing Act. Not necessary whether he knew
Alphacell v Woodward– charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river (pumps clogged, didn’t matter they didn’t know that)
4) Gravity of punishment
Larger punishment = less likely strict liability
SL punishments usually small (Gammon was exception)
Advantages of Strict Liability
- Time and cost of proving mens rea (MR difficult to prove)
- Protection of society by promoting a higher standard of care (e.g:
sale of unfit meat= Callow v Tillstone
pollution= Alphacell v Woodward
dangerous buildings= Gammon - Ease of imposing strict liability as a deterrent
- Proportional punishment (only small penalties)
Disadvantages of Strict Liability
- Possibility of injustice (without fault)
- Role of judges (judges interpreting what they think Parl. means in an Act)
- Is it actually a deterrent? (ppl don’t know what they’re doing is wrong)
- Does it breach the ECHR? (been debate over this- R v Gappears to allow strict liability
- Haphazard approach to due diligence
Proposal for reform
Law Commission has proposed Criminal Liability (Mental Element) Bill, where Parliament would have to make it clear in the Act if they want to categorise an offence as strict liability – prevent confusion
Social benefits of strict liability offences
- Allow for regulation of behaviour + buisness activites
- Rarely a threat to liberty, consistent with human rights
- Risk of danger to public > risk of D’s rights
- Ensures more convictions are secured
- People take more care / deterrence
- Easy to enforce, saves time
- Parliament can provide due diligence where thought to be appropriate
