Justification for Strict Liability

Question 1

What are many statutory offences created by parliament to do?

Answer 1

to prevent danger or other problems to the public

Question 2

What do the risks to the public outweigh when an offence is committed?

Answer 2

they outright the defendants individual rights

Question 3

Even though a defendant might have taken every possible care, why may they still be convicted of an offence?

Answer 3

as it is more important to protect the public

Question 4

What are many statutory offences connected with?

Answer 4

cars and other transport

Question 5

What do statutory offences of strict liability hope to aim with for people who operate vehicles?

Answer 5

for them to take greater care to carry out regular safety checks

Question 6

Who explained the need for statutory offences of strict liability and said that the statutes are meant to put pressure upon the thoughtless rather than act as a punishment.

Answer 6

Roscoe Pound

Question 7

In summary what did Roscoe Pound say when explaining the need for statutory offences of strict liability?

Answer 7

he explained that they are not meant to punish, only put pressure upon the thoughtless

Question 8

What is the main justification for strict liability?

Answer 8

their usefulness to the public as a whole

Question 9

How do strict liability offences help to protect society?

Answer 9

by regulating activities involving potential danger to the public health, safety or morals

Question 10

What activities do strict liability offences help to protect society from?

Answer 10

those involving potential danger to the public health, safety or morals

Question 11

What does making an offence one of strict liability promote?

Answer 11

greater care by encouraging higher standards

Question 12

What do some opponents of strict liability argue?

Answer 12

that there is no evidence that strict liability leads to businesses taking a higher standard of care, and that it may actually be counter productive

Question 13

Why do some people think that strict liability can actually be counter productive?

Answer 13

as if people realise that they could be persecuted even though they have taken every possible care, they may be tempted not to take any precautions

Question 14

What are 4 justifications of the imposition of strict liability?

Answer 14

• Easier to enforce as there is no need to prove mens rea
• saves court time as people are more likely to plead guilty
• Parliament can provide a ‘due diligence’ defence where this is thought to be appropriate
• Lack of blameworthiness can be taken into account when sentencing

Question 15

Rather than persecute for minor regulatory breaches, what are the Health and Safety Executive and Trading Standards officers more likely to do?

Answer 15

more likely to serve improvement notices or prohibition notices in the first instance

Question 16

What is the benefit of the Health and Safety Executive and Trading Standards officers serving improvement notices or prohibition notices in the first instance?

Answer 16

this helps ensure the law is complied with without the need for a court hearing.

Question 17

What defence can soften the law on strict liability?

Answer 17

due diligence

Question 18

What would possibly make the objectors of strict liability more satisfied?

Answer 18

if the defence included in many statutory acts was more consistent

Question 19

In the case of Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999, who was the defence of due diligence allowed for under the relevant act?

Answer 19

allowed for promoters of the lottery but not for those managing a business in which lottery tickets were sold

Question 20

in terms of blameworthiness what is another justification for strict liability?

Answer 20

a judge can pass a very lenient sentence where he feels that the defendants level of blameworthiness was low

Question 21

What are the 5 arguments against strict liability?

Answer 21

• it imposes liability on people who are not blameworthy
• some can be unaware of risks yet still be guilty
• no evidence it improves standards
• contrary to human rights
• some strict liability offences carry a social stigma

Question 22

What is the main argument against strict liability?

Answer 22

the fact that it imposes guilt on people who are not blameworthy in any way even those who have taken all possible care

Question 23

Which 2 cases demonstrates that strict liability imposes guilt on people who are not blameworthy and have taken all possible care?

Answer 23

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999

Callow v Tillstone 1900

Question 24

In the case of Callow v Tillstone 1900 how did D take all possible care yet was still unable to avoid liability?

Answer 24

saw an expert (a vet)

Question 25

What does the case of Environment Agency v Brook plc 1998 allow the defendant to be liable in spite of?

Answer 25

in spite of there being a happening caused by a risk they were unaware of.

Question 26

Why was the company in Environment Agency v Brook plc 1998 liable for the leak?

Answer 26

because the HOL in Environment Agency v Empress Car Co 1998 went on to say that even though it was not foreseeable, a defendant would be liable if the matter was one of ordinary occurrence.

Question 27

What did the Law Lords decide in Environment Agency v Empress Car CO 1998?

Answer 27

that even though it was not foreseeable, a defendant would be liable if the matter was one of ordinary occurrence, it had to be of ‘abnormal and extraordinary’ circumstances

Question 28

What happened in the case of Environment Agency v Brook plc 1998?

Answer 28

a leakage was cashed by a hidden defect in a seal. The leak caused pollution. Defects were rare but an ordinary fact of life. Company= liable for leak

Question 29

a leakage was caused by a hidden defect in a seal. The leak caused pollution. Defects were rare but an ordinary fact of life. Company= liable for leak
What case is this?

Answer 29

Environment Agency v Brook plc 1998

Question 30

How might the imposition of strict liability actually worsen standards?

Answer 30

as if the precautions against a very small risk are too expensive then company managers may decide not to pay for the precautions but to take the risk instead.

Question 31

if the precautions against a very small risk are too expensive then company managers may decide not to pay for the precautions but to take the risk instead. What idea is this?

Answer 31

“profit from risk”

Question 32

What might be more expensive for company than a fine >

Answer 32

the cost of the precautions

Question 33

Which case demonstrates that the imposition of strict liability where an offence is punishable by imprisonable is contrary to the principles of the human rights?

Answer 33

R v G 2008

Question 34

What happened in the case of R v G 2008?

Answer 34

G was 15 and had consented sex with who he thought was a 15 year old girl, but was only 12. G was prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the rape of a child under 13. He was advised that this was a strict liability offence and so his belief that she was 15 was irrelevant and so pleaded guilty, Case referred to HOL to check whether it was one of strict liability and to the entitlement of a fair hearing under the ECHR. Found guilty.

Question 35

G was 15 and had consented sex with who he thought was a 15 year old girl, but was only 12. G was prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the rape of a child under 13. He was advised that this was a strict liability offence and so his belief that she was 15 was irrelevant and so pleaded guilty, Case referred to HOL to check whether it was one of strict liability and to the entitlement of a fair hearing under the ECHR. Found guilty.
What case is this?

Answer 35

R v G 2008

Question 36

What case shows that strict liability can be imposed even where it creates social stigma?

Answer 36

R v G 2008

Question 37

What type of offences carry little or no social stigma?

Answer 37

quasi criminal offences

Question 38

What is the main reason for the need of reform of strict liability?

Answer 38

there is no way of knowing whether Parliament had deliberately decided to make an offence one of strict liability or whether they did not realise that that was the effect of their wording in the act

Question 39

What has been suggested by those wanting to reform strict liability because of the confusion of acts of Parliaments intention?

Answer 39

that Parliament should always state expressly whether an offence is meant to be one of strict liability or not.

Question 40

If Parliament always expressly stated when an offence is meant to be one of strict liability or not what would this mean (positive)?

Answer 40

this would mean there would be no need for courts to use complicated rules of interpretation in order to decide if an offence is one of strict liability or not

Question 41

What did the Draft Criminal Code suggest could make clear whether an offence is one of strict liability or not?

Answer 41

by including the presumption of mens rea in the Code.

Question 42

What clause of the Draft Criminal Code includes the presumption of mens rea in the Code?

Answer 42

clause 20

Question 43

Another way of reforming strict liability could be by requiring each offence to have a defence of what?

Answer 43

of due diligence

Question 44

if each offence had a defence of due diligence what would this avoid?

Answer 44

this would avoid the injustice of those who taken all possible care being guilty of an offence

Question 45

Which 2 countries have developed a general ‘no-negligence’ defence for when defendants have taken all possible care?

Answer 45

• Australia

- Canada

Question 46

What could be a rule regarding imprisonment to reform/improve strict liability?

Answer 46

no offence carrying the penalty of imprisonment could be an offence of strict liability

Question 47

Removing what from the criminal system could be an alternative way of reforming strict liability law?

Answer 47

removing regulatory offences from the criminal system

Question 48

By removing regulatory offences from the criminal system to reform strict liability law, what could these instead be treated as?

Answer 48

as administrative issues

Question 49

What is a mainstream criminal offence example of an Act which removing regulatory offences from the criminal system could not be applied to?

Answer 49

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Question 50

Why can it be argued that criminal liability on the basis of negligence for regulatory offences would obtain a better balance between protecting the public and treating defendants fairly?

Answer 50

as it is difficult to justify legal provisions which result in those who have taken all reasonable care being labelled ‘criminals’