No fault & Strict Liability: Lesson 8 Flashcards
What is the concept of strict liability?
- Offences where mens Rea is not required in at least one aspect of the actus reus e.g Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd 1986
- Courts start with assumption that mens rea is requires until decided otherwise
What happened in the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain?
- Pharmacist convicted for supplying prescription drugs without prescription given by appropriate medical practitioners
- Pharmacist allowed prescription drugs to be supplied on fraudulent prescription where the doctors signature was forged as they were not aware
How did R v Prince 1875 indicate that mens rea may be required for one part of the offence and not the other element?
- Court upheld conviction for taking and unmarried girl under 16 out of her fathers possession without his consent even though defendant believed her to be 18
What are the requirements of Strict Liability?
1) Actus Reus must be proved
2) Actus Reus must be voluntary
What are the exceptions of strict liability offences?
1) Cases where defendant was found guilty even though actus reus was involuntary (absolute liability)
2) Cases where voluntary act committed unintentionally caused outcome even though the defendant was innocent in regards to the consequence ( crimes of no fault)
What is absolute liability?
1) No mens rea required
2) No need to prove actus reus was voluntary
- Involves status offences where the actus reus is a state of affairs, so therefore found liable for being in certain situation e.g Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983
What happened in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent 1983?
- Defendant admitted to hospital on stretcher but upon examination he was found to be drunk
- Defendant was asked to leave hospital but was later found in the corridor of the hospital. The police then took him outside to the roadway and arrested him for being drunk on a public highway
What is offences of no fault?
1) proved actus reus
2) act must be voluntary
3) voluntary act led to prohibited act
4) defendant is totally blameless in respect of the consequence
- Callow v Tillstone 1900
What happened in Callow v Tillstone 1900?
- Defendant was convicted of selling meat which was unfit for public consumption even though a vet had declared the meat safe to eat
What are features of strict liability offences?
1) No ‘due diligence’ defence (Callow v Tillstone 1900)
2) No defence of mistake ( Candy v Le Cocq 1884)
What is ‘Due Dilligence’?
Where the defendant did all that was within their power not to commit offence
What happened in Cundy v Le Cocq 1884?
- Defendant unlawfully sold alcohol to an intoxicated person
- Defendant contended they’d been unaware of customers drunkenness and should be acquitted
- Court held that knowledge was irrelevant
Is strict liability in common law offences?
Only 3 common law offences are strict liability
1) Public nuisance
2) Criminal libel
3) Outraging public decency
Is strict liability in statutory offences?
Over half of all statutory offences are of strict liability. Mostly they are regulatory in nature e.g
1) Regulating food sales
2) Regulating alcohol sales
3) Regulating gaming ticket sales
4) Prevention of pollution
5) Ensuring safe use of vehicles
How do courts decide whether strict liability applies?
- GAMMON TESTS
1) Presumption of mens rea, unless said otherwise
2) Looking at the rest of the act
3) Quasi criminal offence- if regulatory it has higher chance of being SL
4) Penalty of imprisonment: when it punishable by imprisonment, lower likelihood of being held as SL
5) Issue of social concern: crimes with potential danger have higher likelihood of being SL
6) would strict liability promote enforcement of law: If answers yes it’s SL
What are advantages for strict liability?
- Policy issue
- Social utility
- Easy to enforce as there no mens rea
- Saves time as people more likely to plead guilty
5) Lack of blameworthiness taken into account
6) Parliament can provide due diligence offence when appropriate
What are Disadvantages of strict liability?
- Imposes liability on people who aren’t blame worthy
- Those genuinely unaware of risks may be guilty
- No evidence that it improves standards
- Contrary to human rights
- Some strict liability offences carry stigma
How can strict liability be reformed?
- Suggested that parliament should expressly state whether an offence is or is not strict liability to prevent courts from using complicated interpretation rules
- Requiring each offence to have due diligence defence avoids injustice
- Removing regulatory offences from criminal system. They can be treated as administrative issues
