General Elements of Liability: Strict Liability

Question 1

What is strict liability?

Answer 1

• Where the defendant is found guilty without Mens Rea. Only Actus Reus is necessary

Question 2

Name a case that concerns standard strict liability. What happened?

Answer 2

• Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd
  
  • Pharmacist found guilty of supplying drugs without a valid prescription, even though they didn’t know that the signature had been forged

Question 3

The defendant must be proved to have committed the Actus Reus and in most cases this must be voluntary. What is the oldest case that illustrates a situation in which the Actus Reus had been done involuntarily, but the defendant was still found guilty? What did this come to be known as?

Answer 3

• Larsonneur (1933)

- Absolute liability

Question 4

What is absolute liability?

Answer 4

• Where no Mens Rea is required and the Actus Reus does not need to be voluntary

Question 5

What is the other case concerning absolute liability? (as in not Larsonneur (1933). What happened?

Answer 5

• Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)
  
  • Drunk man kicked out of hospital and then found guilt of being drunk on a highway, even though the police put him there

Question 6

What happened in R v Prince (1975)?

Answer 6

• Defendant charged with taking an unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession of her father
• He believed her to be 18, but the conviction was upheld (strict liability)

Question 7

What happened in R v Hibbert (1869)?

Answer 7

• Defendant charged with taking an unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession of her father
• Held - not guilty as he didn’t know the girl was in her father’s custody

Question 8

How do R v Prince (1875) and R v Hibbert (1869) differ?

Answer 8

• In R v Prince the defendant knew that the girl in question was in her father’s custody, whereas the defendant in R v Hibbert didn’t

Question 9

A defendant can be convicted of an offence where he voluntarily commits the Actus Reus, which then leads to to a prohibited consequence. In what case was this decided?

Answer 9

• Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Question 10

What happened in Callow v Tillstone (1900)?

Answer 10

• Callow told by vet that a carcass was fit for human consumption
• It wasn’t
• Callow convicted

Question 11

What is the defence of due diligence?

Answer 11

• The only real defence against strict liability offences, where a defendant can argue that they took all reasonable care to prevent the consequences

Question 12

Name a case that illustrates strict liability in terms of age limiits

Answer 12

• Harrow London Borough Council v Shah & Shah (1999)

Question 13

What happened in Harrow London Borough Council v Shah & Shah (1999)?

Answer 13

• Member of staff sold a lottery ticket to an underage boy

- Owners of shop found guilty as they knew the law

Question 14

Is the defence of mistake available for strict liability offences?

Answer 14

• No

Question 15

Name two cases that involve strict liability in terms of selling alcohol

Answer 15

• Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

- Sherras v De Rutzen (1895)

Question 16

Even though they came to the same judgement, how do Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) and Sherras v De Rutzen (1895) differ?

Answer 16

• in Cundy it was held to be an observable fact that the customer was drunk. In Sherras it was impossible to know whether the constable was on duty or not

Question 17

What is the main problem with the strict liability area of law?

Answer 17

• Deciding which offences should be strictly liable

Question 18

Where are most strict liability offences found? Any exceptions?

Answer 18

• Statutes

- 4 found in common law

Question 19

What are the four common law offences which the courts have decided are strict liability?

Answer 19

• Public nuisance
• Criminal libel
• Blasphemous libel
• Criminal contempt of court

Question 20

Name a case that illustrates blasphemous libel as a strict liability offence

Answer 20

• Lemon & Whitehouse v Gay News (1979)

Question 21

What happened in Lemon & Whitehouse v Gay News (1979)?

Answer 21

• Gay News had published a poem which described homosexual acts carried out on the body of Christ after his death. Held to be blasphemous libel despite no mens rea (strict liability)

Question 22

Many strict liability offences are regulatory offences. What does this mean? Give two examples

Answer 22

• They regulate various types of behaviour
• E.g speeding and traffic offences regulate the flow of traffic on the roads
• E.g food and hygiene regulations regulate the sale of food

Question 23

The courts always start with what presumption?

Answer 23

• That mens rea is required

Question 24

Name a case that illustrates a need for Mens Rea

Answer 24

• Sweet v Parsley (1969)

Question 25

What happened in Sweet v Parsley (1969)?

Answer 25

• School teacher let out her house to students
• They smoked weed there without her knowledge
• Charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 BUT no conviction as HoL found that the common law required mens rea

Question 26

How do courts decide whether a crime should be interpreted as a strict liability offence?

Answer 26

• They look at the wording Parliament has used in that particular statute

Question 27

What is the issue with courts looking at the wording of particular statutes to decide whether a crime should be interpreted as a strict liability offence? (2)

Answer 27

• It is largely based on the judge’s interpretation of the wording
• Parliament rarely gives any strong indication that an offence should be one of strict liability and the statutes are mostly silent on the issue

Question 28

What is the full name of the Gammon Case?

Answer 28

• Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1984)

Question 29

What happened in Gammon (Hong King) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1984)?

Answer 29

• Defendant had built a building in Hong Kong
• Part of it collapsed due to the builders having deviated from the original plans
• Strict liability offence
• Convicted

Question 30

As a result of the Gammon Case, what did the privy council restate?

Answer 30

• The courts should always start with the presumption that mens rea is always required and then move on to four tests

Question 31

What are the four tests that should be considered once the court has started with the presumption that mens rea is always required? (Re stated as a result of the Gammon Case)? (4)

Answer 31

• Does the wording of the statute indicate strict liability?
• Is the offence of a regulatory nature or a ‘true crime’?
• Is the issue involved an area of social/public concern?
• Will enforcing strict liability promote greater vigilance?

Question 32

Name a case that illustrates how the wording of a statute affects whether mens rea is required. What was the wording?

Answer 32

• Alphacell v Woodward (1972)

- This involved the word ‘cause’. The factory ‘caused’ pollution to enter the river. No mens rea was required

Question 33

Give two examples of words used in statutes that meant he offence requires mens rea

Answer 33

• Knowingly

- Intentionally

Question 34

What is the difference between regulatory offences and true crime?

Answer 34

• Generally true crimes are those to which a stigma can be attached (e.g murder)
• Regulatory offences (e.g speeding) have very little, if any, social stigma attached to them

Question 35

The courts look at the statute involved to decide whether it involves an issue of social concern. This can result in strict liability being imposed in what situations?

Answer 35

• Where there may be dangers to public health, safety or morals

Question 36

Give a case that illustrates how the presumption that Mens Rea is required could be rebutted where the offence concerns an issue of public safety. What happened?

Answer 36

• Blake (1997)

- Accidentally transmitted an unlicensed radio station broadcast

Question 37

The courts need to ask whether imposing strict liability will make the law more effective in promoting its objectives. Give two cases concerning this

Answer 37

• Lim Chin Aik v The Queen (1963)

- Smedley’s v Breed (1974)

Question 38

What happened in Lim Chin Aik v The Queen (1963)? What was decided?

Answer 38

• Defendant convicted of entering Singapore when banned
• He had no idea
• Appeal allowed - held that strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act. In this case it wouldn’t.

Question 39

What happened in Smedley’s v Breed (1974)?

Answer 39

• Smedley’s made tinned peas
• 4 tins contained caterpillars
• Found guilty of strict liability offence because of the statute of health and safety