Fault- Paragraph two- nearly done.

Question 1

What is the main question for paragraph two?

Answer 1

Is it justifiable for non-fault based liability in law?

Question 2

What do strict liability offences require?

Answer 2

The actus reus and not the mens rea.

Question 3

What was the case of Harrow and Harrow V Shah?

Answer 3

• Did training etc..
• Sold lotto ticket to under age person.
• Strict liability so owner held accountable.

Question 4

Why could strict liability offences be a positive thing?

Answer 4

• Benefits society as a whole.
• Based on utilitarianism- the greater good for the greater number of people.
• Makes it easier to prove guilt saving time in court.

Question 5

What are quasi offences (talk about after 1st instance positivity of strict liability and utalitarianism)

Answer 5

• Do not leave a stigma behind.

- Includes food safety under the food safety act.

Question 6

Why does imposing strict liability on things such as food safety benefit society as a whole? (even if unfair) (also for gambling)

Answer 6

• Good practice.
• clean kitchen.
• Prevention of underage gambling (Harrow V Shah and Shah).

Question 7

Why can it become more problematic when it comes to more serious crimes?

Answer 7

• Sweet V Parsley- rented house to teenagers, they did drugs there.
• Liable under dangerous drugs act 1965 for being involved in management.
• Lost her job.

Question 8

What was the outcome of Sweet V Parsley?

Answer 8

• Taken to HL and they quashed conviction.

- For true criminal acts- must be a mens rea.

Question 9

Overall view on strict liability?

Answer 9

-Promotes good practice, and has no stigma attached because true crimes need a mens rea.

Question 10

Massive problem with strict liability?

Answer 10

-Not always clear in statute- courts decide.

Question 11

Another massive problem case wise for strict liability?

Answer 11

R vs Howells (1997)

• did not realise he needed a licence for his antique gun
• Charged- S1 Firearms act (1968)
• 5 years imprisonment.