No Fault and strict liability Flashcards
what are strict liability offences
- offences where the mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus.
Explain absolute liability
- means that no mens rea at all is required for the offence nor does the actus reus have to be voluntary.
-involves status offences offences where the actus reus is a ‘state of affairs’
-there is no need to prove that the defendant ‘s actus reus was voluntary.
what happened in the case Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Stork Wain Ltd (1986)
D had supplied drugs on prescriptions, but the prescriptions were later found to be forged. There was no finding that D had acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently, the forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacist. The HOL held that the divisional court was right to direct the magistrates to convict D.
D was charged under section 58 of the medicines Act 1968 which states that no one shall supply certain drugs without a doctor’s prescription.
Explain the term ‘no fault’
- the actus rea must already be proved and defendant’s conduct in doing the actus reus must be voluntary.
-however the defendant can be convicted if their voluntary act inadvertently causes a prohibited consequence.
What is case surrounding ‘no fault’
- Callow v Tillstone
-a butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption
-the vet assured him that it was alright to eat so the butcher offered it to sale.
-it was unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale.
-strict liability offence the butcher was guilty even though he had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence .
-butcher not at fault.
Define due diligence
-where the defendant has done all that was within their power not to commit that offence
Explain what happened in Harrow LBC Shah and Shah
when the defendants took all the reasonable steps to prevent the offence but were still guilty there was no ‘due diligence’ defence available.
the defendants owned a newsagents business where the lottery tickets were sold
told their staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years old.
-staff had sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old without asked proof of age
-sale man sold the tickets thinking he was 16
Explain what is meant by no defence of mistake
- D will still be guilty even though she/he made a genuine mistake.
What case explains ‘no defence of mistake’
Cundy v le Cocq
- the defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a drunk person, even though neither he nor his staff noticed the intoxication
-the court held that proof of the sale and the person’s drunkenness was enough for conviction regardless of awareness and intention
explain the term of presumption of the mens rea
in order to decide whether an offence is one of strict liability , the courts start by assuming that mens rea is required.
What is a case example of presumption of the mens rea
- Sweet v Parsley
-the defendant was not guilty because she didn’t know cannabis was being smoked on her property
the court decided the offence required a mens rea even though the law didn’t state it.
