No Fault: Strict liability Flashcards
What are strict liability offences?
Where the mens rea isn’t required in at least one aspect of the actus reus
What are requirements of the AR?
-Must be proved the D did the relevant AR
- The AR was voluntary
What’s absolute liability?
No men’s rea needed for the offence and the AR doesn’t need to be voluntary. These involve “status offences” where AR is a “state of affairs”. The D is liable as they have been found in a certain situation
What happened in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent?
D was drunk in a hospital and the police took him to a roadway outside. The D was charged with being found drunk on a highway. D was found guilty as he was found in a public space. (Absolute liability case example)
What happened in R v Prince and what does it show about strict liability?
Prince knew the girl he “took” was in possession of her father, but thought she was 18. He was convicted as he had the intention to take the girl away from her father. MR was needed for this part of the AR. However, the court held the knowledge of her age wasn’t needed. This aspect of the offence was strict liability. Shows that MR may be needed for one part of the offence, but the other part is one of strict liability.
What’s no fault liability?
When the D can be convicted if their voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence, even if the D was totally blameless of the consequence.
What happened in Callow v Tillstone?
A vet assured a butcher that the product was edible, so the butcher offered it for sale. But it was unfit and D was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale. It was a strict liability offence, the butcher was guilty, despite trying not to commit the offence
What’s no defence of mistake?
In SLOs, the defendant will still be guilty, even if he or she made a genuine mistake.
What happened in Cundy v Le Cocq?
The D was charged with selling alcohol to a drunk, despite claiming he didn’t know the man was drunk. His conviction was upheld. (SLO)
What’s no “due diligence “ defence?
Where the D has done all within their power to not commit an offence. If they can show they did their due diligence, they won’t be liable
What happened in Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah?
D’s owned a newsagents where lottery tickets were sold. One of their staff sold a ticket to a 13 year old boy who he believed was over 16. D’s were charged with selling a lottery ticket to an under 16, despite them constantly telling their staff to ask for proof of age. Both D’s were guilty, it was a strict liability offence.
How do courts decide if strict liability offences apply?
The Gammons Test - 4 factors decided:
1. Looking at the wording of an Act
2. Quasi criminal offences
3. Social concern or public protection
4. Preventing the prohibited act
What are justifications for strict liability offences?
- usefulness to the public as a whole. SLO’s help protect society by regulating activities involving “potential danger to public health, safety or morals”
- the law is easier to enforce as there’s no need to prove men’s rea. In court, the fact that only the Act has to be proved saves time and also leads to many guilty pleas
- lack of blameworthiness is taken into account when sentencing. A judge can pass a very lenient sentence where he or she feels that the defendants level of blame worthiness was low
What are arguments against strict liability?
- it imposes guilt on those who aren’t blameworthy, even if they have taken all possible care (Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah and also Callow v Tillstone)
- contrary to human rights - R v G (2005) G was a 15 year old boy who had consensual sex with a 12 year old girl who lied about her age. G was prosecuted for the offence of rape of a child under 13. The D was guilty of a very serious offence, even though he believed the girl was the same age as him.
- strict liability may not lead to businesses taking a higher standard of care. If people realise they could be prosecuted despite taking every possible care, they may avoid taking precautions.
