Strict liability Flashcards
What is a strict liability offence?
One where mens rea is not required as to at least one element of the actus reus.
Give the facts of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986).
D supplied medicines without a prescription, the prescription handed to him was fraudulent.
What does the case of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985) demonstrate?
When interpreting statute there is always a presumption that mens rea is required.
Give the facts of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985)
The defendants were charged with deviating from building regulations in a material way from the approved plan.
What does the case of B v DPP (2000) demonstrate?
When interpreting statute there is always a presumption that mens rea is required.
Does the defendant have to perform the actus reus voluntarily for a strict liability offence?
Yes.
What is an absolute liability offence?
One where no mens rea is required at all.
Does the defendant have to perform the actus reus voluntarily for an absolute liability offence?
No.
Give the facts of Larsonneur (1933).
D was from a foreign country and had been ordered to leave the UK so she went to Ireland. However, the Irish police found her and deported her to England and was convicted of ‘being an alien whom leave to land in the UK was refused’.
Give the facts of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983).
D was drunk and was taken to hospital on a stretcher, where they found he was not ill so he was told to leave. He was found in a corridor, so the police were called and he was taken outside and charged with being found drunk in a public highway.
Which presumption can be rebutted if Parliament intended to create a strict liability offence?
The presumption that mens rea is required when interpreting statute.
Give the facts of R v G (2008).
G, 15, had sex with a girl who he thought was 15 but she was actually 12. He was found guilty of rape of a child under 13.
What does the case of R v G (2008) demonstrated?
The presumption in favour of mens rea can be rebutted if Parliament intended to create a strict liability offence.
Can a defendant be convicted if their voluntary act accidentally led to a prohibited consequence?
Yes.
Give the facts of Callow v Tillstone (1900).
A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption which the vet certified it was. However, it was not fit for human consumption, so the butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale.
What is the defence of due diligence?
The defence is that the defendant has done all they can to avoid committing an offence.
When is the defence of due diligence available?
There is no sensible pattern as to when the defence is available.
Give the facts of Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and Shah (1999).
The defendants owned a newsagents and frequently warned their staff not to sell lottery tickets to minors. One of their staff did so, and the defendants were convicted.
Which defence is not available for strict liability offences?
The defence of mistake.
Give the facts of Cundy v Le Cocq (1884).
D was charged with selling intoxicated liquor to a drunken person, when in fact the customer did nothing to display any insobriety.
Give the facts of Sherras v De Rutzen (1895).
D was charged with supplying alcohol to a police officer on duty, but the police officer had taken his ‘on-duty’ armband off so there was no way the defendant could have known. He was not convicted.
What are the three common law strict liability offences?
Public nuisance, criminal libel and outraging public decency.
Give the facts of Gibson and Sylveire (1991).
Gibson made an art exhibit featuring earrings made of freeze-dried human foetuses. Sylveire put the exhibit on display. Both were convicted of outraging public decency.
Give the facts of Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News (1979).
A poem was published, describing homosexual acts done to Christ after his death and his alleged acts during his life. The editor and publisher were convicted of blasphemy.
