Strict Liability Flashcards
What is the main rule for strict liability?
MR does not need to be proven in respect of at least one aspect of an AR.
( only actus reus needed to be guilty )
Case for strict liability? ( drugs )
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V Storkwain - D has supplied drugs on prescription which later turned out to be forged. D didn’t think/realise they had done anything wrong yet guilty as they had supplied drugs without a genuine prescription. HOL upheld this.
If offence doesn’t require a MR………
then the offence is one of strict liability and D can be convicted if his voluntary act caused a prohibited consequence even though he’s blameless.
Case for strict liability? ( meat )
Callow V Till-stone - butcher took a carcass to a vet who said it was okay to sell. Butcher sold it. Carcass was unfit. Butcher guilty of exposing unsound meat for sale.
Courts and judges presume that a men’s Rea is required so how do they know whether a Men’s Rea is needed for an offence?
If the act contains the words “maliciously , intentionally , permitting or knowing”.
Case for whether men’s Rea is needed for an offence?
Sweet V Parsley - D rented a farmhouse out to students. Police found cannabis at farmhouse and D was arrested. Not guilty as courts determined offence needed a MR.
What is the gammon test?
The presumption that means Rea is required for a criminal offence can be rebutted if the words of a statute suggest that scrict liability is intended.
What is the case for gammon tests?
Gammon Ltd V Attorney General of Hong Kong 1984 - appellants had been charged with deviating from building work in a material way from the approved plan - contrary to the Hong Kong Building Ordinances.
What did the privy council do first? ( Gammon )
Began with the assumption that MR was required then considered 4 other factors.
What are the 4 factors for presumption of MR that the privy council considered? ( Gammon )
1) The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words/act. ( if the act says it’s not required )
2) The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is “truly criminal” in character.
3) The presumption can only be displaced if the statue is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety.
4) Strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.
What does truly criminal mean?
When the offence affects large area of everyday life. Offices that have a penalty of imprisonment or are regulatory are more likely to be “truly criminal.” The more truly criminal the more likely it needs a MR.
What condition is truly criminal linked to?
That the presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with social concern.
What was the basis of the decision in R v Blake?
Making an offence to be strict liability should only be done if it helps law enforcement or theres no point.
2 cases for why we need strict liability?
R v Blake
Lim Chan Aik V The Queen
What happened in R v Blake?
A disc jockey was convicted of using a station for wireless telegraphy without a license. Tried to say he didn’t know he was transmitting. Convicted due to strict liability. Appealed to COA but failed.
