Strict Liability Flashcards
What are strict liability offences
Mens rea is not required
Nature of strict liability offences
Less serious, more regulatory crimes e.g speeding.
Not truly criminal, often called quasi crimes
R v Prince
Took girl under 16 away from father. Believed she was 18, conviction upheld as it was a strict liability crime-reasonable belief was no defence.
How to distinguish strict liability offences
If act includes words indicating mens rea (intentionally, knowingly)
If act is silent about need for MR, court must decide
How courts decide strict liability if not included.
Gammon v AG Hong Kong
Gammon Test 5 Principles
Presumption of MR Looking at rest of act Quasi-criminal offences Issues of social concern Penalty of imprisonment
Presumption of MR and case
If not mentioned, presume MR required.
Sweet v Parsley-boys rented out house and smoked in it. Renter could not be liable for it as MR needed, would be unfair if strict liability
Looking at rest of act, and case
If other sections state MR required, but the considered one doesn’t, most likely MR not required so strict liability.
Storkwain-Held omission to mention MR must’ve been deliberate as other sections did include it. (Potentially issue here for paper 3, depends on drafting skills)
Quasi crimes and case
Regulatory offences more likely SI
Harrow v Shah & Shah-sold lottery ticket to someone u16.
Issues of social concern
Where offence involves danger to public safety or morals, more likely SI
Blake-broadcasting without license, could’ve interfered with emergency services etc. SI
Penalty of imprisonment and case
If imprisonment, less likely to be SI as serious. (SI usually fines)
B v DPP-sexual advancements made to 12yo. Held:MR required as offence carried a max 2 year sentence
Strict liability can be an omission too, in what act?
Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004- Any household member liable if a child dies by domestic violence
Smedley Peas
The defendant company had sold a can of peas. A caterpillar was found in it.
Held: Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required.
Due diligence defence
Recognises sometimes a person has taken all reasonable steps to avoid offence being committed so should not be liable. Mitigates perceived harshness of S.L, however defence is often not available.
