strict liability

Question 1

what needs to be proven in strict liability

Answer 1

only actus reus

Question 2

why does only actus reus need to be proven

Answer 2

intention is irrelevant

Question 3

3 features of strict liability

Answer 3

rare- they are the exception
minor (e.g punishment would be a fine)
regulatory- makes us extra careful

Question 4

what 4 things do courts look at when deciding if an offence should be strict liability or not

Answer 4

 1. The court should always presume mens rea is required
 2. This presumption is even stronger when the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in nature
 3. The wording of a statute must be extremely clear before it can displace this presumption
 4. An offence is more likely to be classed as strict liability if it is an issue of social concern

Question 5

what case were these 4 statements created in

Answer 5

Gammon v AG for Hong Kong (1985):

Question 6

'’The court should always presume mens rea is required’’ case

Answer 6

sweet v parseley

Question 7

sweet v parsley facts

Answer 7

d was the landlord who was unaware the tenants were growing cannabis in their student house, she was not guilty as she did not have the mens rea and this was required

Question 8

'’This presumption is even stronger when the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in nature’’ case

Answer 8

r v blake

Question 9

r v blake facts

Answer 9

d playing music in headphones. charged for making unlicensed broadcasts using frequencies used by emergency services but claimed he didn’t know and was making a demo tape so no mens rea
guilty- issue for social concern

Question 10

'’The wording of a statute must be extremely clear before it can displace this presumption’’ case

Answer 10

r v lane and letts

Question 11

r v lane and letss facts

Answer 11

d were parents who sent £233 to their son who had travelled to syria to fight. charged under terrorism act 2000 with sending funds which would have been used for terrorism purposes. they argued this required mens rea but they still found guilty as words of statute did not require this

Question 12

'’an offence is more likely to be classed as strict liability if it is an issue of social concern’’ case

Answer 12

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999

Question 13

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999 facts

Answer 13

he defendant owned several newsagents which sold National Lottery tickets. They were charged with selling a ticket to a child under 16, which is an offence under s. 13 National Lottery Act 1993.