Liability Flashcards
Pharmaceutical society of Great Britian v Storkwain Ltd (1986)
The appellant, a pharmacist was convicted of an offence under s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. The appellant had allowed prescription drugs to be supplied on production of fraudulent prescriptions whereby a doctor’s signature had been copied. The appellant was not party to the fraud and had no knowledge of the forged signatures and believed the prescriptions were genuine.
Held:
The offence was one of strict liability and the conviction was upheld. The House of Lords looked at other sections of the Medicines Act 1968 and found that some sections referred to a requirement of mens rea whereas other sections did not. They concluded that the omission to refer to mens rea in s.58 must therefore have been deliberate and so the presumption of mens rea was rebutted.
Absolute liability
proof of actus reas, not concerned whether AR was voluntary. Winzar and Larsonneur
R v Prince (1875)
he appellant was charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her father contrary to s.55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He knew that the girl was in the custody of her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18.
Held:
His conviction was upheld. The offence was one of strict liability as to age and therefore his reasonable belief was no defence.
R v Hibbert (1869)
The D met the girl aged 14 on the street, he took her to another place where they had sexual intercourse. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew she was in the custody of her father. Even though the age aspect of the offence was one of strict liability, mens rea was required for the removal aspect and in this case, the necessary intention was not proved
Callow v Tillstone (1900)
A butcher was convicted of selling unfit meat despite the fact that he had had the meat certified as safe by a vet before the sale. His conviction was upheld as the offence was one of strict liability and it mattered not how diligent he had been to ensure the safety of the meat.
