strict liability Flashcards
what is strict liability?
strict liability is an exception to the general principle that the men rea element does not need to be proved EG R V HIBBER AND R V PRINCE
what type of cases is the strict liability offence aimed at ?
driving cases , such as speeding , driving without a licence/ insurance.
why is the offense of strict liability controversial?
the offense of strict liability is controversial because it means that a person may be liable where they are not at fault because of the lack of mens rea eg CALLOW V TILLSTONE.
what does absolute liability mean ?
absolute liability means that no mens rea is required at all for the offence. they involve statute offense shwere the actus reus is a state of affairs - eg WINZAR V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF KENT
when are the two conditions which apply to absolute liability?
- the offence does not require any mens rea
2. there is no need to prove that the defendants actus reus was voluntary
what cases were linked to absolute liability ?
- winzar v chief constable of kent ( drunk on a highway, put there by police)
- larsonneur ( larsonneur was convicted of being found in the uk even tho she had been brought there by immigration authorities
how do courts determine if the offence is strict liability or not?
because there is always a presumption of mens rea, courts will start by assuming that crimes require both the msn rea and the actus reus - eg legislation must state that there is no mens rea required eg in SWEET V PARSELY( teacher let her hous eout to students without managing property) and in B V DPPN
what cases show that there is always a presumption of mens rea?
- SWEET V PARSELY
- - B V DPP
WHAT ARE THE GAMMON PRINCIPLES ?
FROM THE CASE OFR GAMMON LTD V ATTORNEY GENNRAL OF HONG KNONG 1995 introduced these principles
cording to Gammon, this presumption may be rebutted where:
- The crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime; or
- The crime is one of social concern; or
- The wording of the Act indicates strict liability; or
- The offence carries a small penalty.
what are some words the courts look if mens rea needs to be proven?
” intentionally
, recklessly
knowingly
what are some case examples of words that may sugges mens rea is required?
- James and son v smee - using causing or permitting indicate mens rea is required
- harrow lbc v shah shah - no mens rea was required was an offence of strict liability
what are some cases where mens rea was not required?
- R V STORKWAIN - was an offence of strict liability
- ALPHACELL V WOODWARD - no mens rea was required
what is meant by truly criminal as one of the principles of the gammon principles?
- it means that CRIME IS REGULATORY as appose to truly criminal in nature. regulatory cases are seen as strict liability cases also known as quasi crimes.
eg CALLOW V - TILLSTONE - selling meat which was unfit for human consumption
R V WOODROW- SELLING adulterated milk rather than poor
what is a quasi crime :?
a semi crime
what are some other cases that are ones of strict liability and are regulatory rather that truly criminal
- CALLOW V TILLSTONE
- ALPHACELL VWOODWARD
explain what this means social concern or public safety
examples of social concern would be alphacell v woodward and thames water v bromley magistrates courts
others include medleys v Breed (1974) - health and safety
R v Blake - protection of public state
what is an example case that was one of strict morality liability where public was threaten ?
R V LEMON - this was an usual crime of blaspemous and concerned explict content however this no longer exists
what do the courts ask about strict liability ?
the courts question whether strict liability will make the law more effective in promoting its objectives illistated in WARNER V MPC
what case threatened public morality
R V LEMON
what case illustrated the courts being strict on promoting there objectives and attempting to make the law more effective
WARNER V MPC
what is the defence of due diligence ?
this may be applied where the defendant has taken the necessary care to prevent and no negligence is apparent so they prove it is the fault of a third party eg in
TESCO LTD V NATRASS
what case illustrated due diligence being used ?
TESCO LTD V NATRASS , only the statute can allow this
can mistake be used for an offence of strict liability ?
NO mistake is not available for strict liability illustrated in CUNDY V LE COCQ - selling alcohol to a drunken person without being aware
name three positives of strict liability
- PROMOTES HIGH STANDARDS OF CARE strict liability protects the public from dangerous practices eg Barbara Wootton has defended strict liability on this basis, suggesting that if the objective of criminal law is to prevent socially damaging activities
- PROVIDES A STRONG DETTERENT - as many of these offences are handled by government bodies such as the health and safety inspectorate , that put great pressures on offenders to put right any breaches , and acts a great enforcement agent
- TIME KEEPING - allows the courts to make time for more serious criminal offences , and would be too time consuming to prove mens rea for all crimes specifically ones that are quasi crimes such as speeding which could be dealt quickly
what are some negatives of strict liability name 3 ?
- HUMAN RIGHT ISSUES- breaches article 6 of echr “ innocent till proven guilty” illustrated in HANSEN V DENMARK suggests that a defendant is presumed liable which breaches articl 6
- UNFAIR - d will be convicted even if they have attempted to avoid the prohibited act eg callow v till stone and harrow lbc v shah shah - however due diligence could be used here
INEFFECTIVE - no real evidence that strict liability is effective or creates a strong detterent especially because the chances of being court and charged are quite low
-
what are some potential reforms ?
-n 2010 the Law Commission published the report “Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts” it considered that Parliament should state in Acts whether an offence was one of strict liability. It was felt this would make the law clearer rather than courts having to interpret
summerise the 3 postives of strict liabilty
- strong detterent - regulated by government bodie, enforces action
- high quality of care - protects public( barbra woottom) defended this
- time keeping - mens rea needed to be proven for every small crime very time consuming
summeris the negatives of strict liability
- innefective - dno evidence that is detters and cahnces of being courts are low
- unfair- liable even if taken percustaion to stop perhibited act eg Callow v tilstone and harrow ibc b shah shah
- human rights - breaches article 6” innocet till proven guilty
