Strict Liability

Question 1

What is a strict liability offence and how does it consider fault?

Why are strict liability offences considered to be necessary?

Answer 1

Strict liability offences require no mens rea to be proved for at least one element of the actus reus. Strict liability offences can be imposed without fault on the part of the defendant.

Strict liability offences allow for the smooth running of society and most cover regulatory offences

Question 2

What is an absolute liability offence?

Give a case example?

Answer 2

1. Absolute liability offences require proof of actus reus but are not concerned with whether this actus reus was voluntary.
2. R v Larsonneur

Question 3

Who must usually decide whether an offence is one of strict liability and why?

What presumption do judges always start with?

What four factors do they use to confirm or rebut this presumption?

Answer 3

1. The Judges as parliament does not always make it clear whether an offence is one of strict liability or not
2. The presumption that mens rea is required
3. The four gammon factors

Question 4

What case created the gammon factors and what happened in it?

What also do judges also use to interpret statutes?

Answer 4

Gammon (HK) ltd v Attorney General - Builders had failed to follow exact plans and part of the building collapsed

Statutory interpretation - aides such as literal, golden, mischief and purposive interpretation

Question 5

What’s the first question of the gammon factors?

Give a case example?

Answer 5

1. Is the offence regulatory in nature or a true crime?
2. Sweet v Parsley - Woman convicted for managing property where teenagers were growing cannabis. She appealed saying she could not have been expected to know. The conviction was overturned as strict liability should only be used for ‘quasi-crimes” where no real moral issue was involved

Question 6

What’s the second test of the gammon factors?

Give some examples?

Give a case example?

Answer 6

1. Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern?
2. Selling alchohol or cigerettes to minors, pollution and public safety
3. Harrow London Borough Council v Shah - Defendants were convicted of selling national lottery tickets to under 16s, did not matter that the defendants did not know they were under 16

Question 7

What’s the third question of the gammon tests?

Give three words that imply mens rea?

Give a case example?

Answer 7

1. Did parliament intend to create an offence of strict liability by using certain words in the statute?
2. Intentionally, recklessly and knowingly
3. Alphacell v Woodward - The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river. The pumps that prevented the pollution from overflowing to the river had become clogged with leaves and, as a result, the matter leaked into the river. It was irrelevant that the defendants had no idea the pumps were clogged and had not wanted any contamination to enter the river. They had caused the polluted matter to enter the river and were therefore liable

Question 8

What’s the fourth question of the gammon tests?

What’s the issue with this question?

Give a case example?

Answer 8

1. The gravity of the punishment
2. The associated small penalties do not act a suitable deterrent
3. Callow v Tillstone - A butcher was convicted of ‘exposing unfit meat for sale’. The butcher was found guilty even though he had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence by having the carcass inspected by a vet who said it was safe to eat

Question 9

Name three advantages of strict liability?

Answer 9

Time and cost of proving mens rea - Mens rea is dificult to prove and if it had to be proved for every offence then it would cost the courts time and money and potentially allow guilty individuals to escape conviction

Protection of society by promoting a higher standard of care - The fact strict liability offences are easy to prove will encourage individuals to take more care to prevent the harmful behaviour

The ease of imposing strict liability acts as a deterrent - Individuals are deterred due to the ease of prosecution

Proportinality of the punishment appropriate for strict liability - Offences tend to carry small punishments which is fair considering a person can commit such an offence without knowledge

Question 10

Name three disadvantages of strict liability?

Answer 10

Possibility of injustice - Liability is imposed without fault of the defendant and even if they did everything they could to avoid the negative result

Role of judges - Since judges are interpreting there is a risk of inconsistency in the imposition of strict liability

Is strict liability actually a deterrent - Fines are small so it may not be a suitable deterrent to prevent businesses from continuing the negative actions. Also with strict liability the deterrent argument is flawed as strict liability involves people not knowing they are committing an offence meaning that a deterrent is useless

Question 11

What reform bill has been proposed?

What would the bill do?

Answer 11

Criminal Liability (Mental Element) Bill (1977)

The onus would be on Parliament, if it wished to create an offence of strict liability, to make this clear in the act of Parliament. It is Parliament’s responsibility to decide the nature of criminal liability and to provide a clear indication to judges of whether it intended to create a crime with no requirement of mens rea. This would prevent some of the confusion and inconsistency of judicial decisions