Strict Liability

Question 1

R v Woodrow 1846

Answer 1

First case of SL
Tabaco seller found with adultered tobacco and found G without MR

Question 2

Absolute Liability Criteria

Answer 2

1. Offence does not require MR
2. There is no need to prove that the actus reps was voluntary

Question 3

R v Larsonneur

Answer 3

French national caught working illegally in the UK.
Fled to ROI.
Arrested In ROI and deported to UK
Upon arrival was arrested and charged under Aliens Act - SL offence

Question 4

R v Price

Answer 4

D violated OAPA by taking girl out of possession of her father.
Even though he reasonably belived she was 18.
Court held this was irrevelvant SL offence

Question 5

Common Law SL offences

Answer 5

Public Nuisance
Criminal Liable
Blasphemous Libel
Criminal Contempt of Court

Question 6

Lemon & Whitehouse v Gay News

Answer 6

Gay news published a poem descriving a roman solider having sex wiht the body of Jesus.
Whitehouse brought private prosectuion and Gay news was convicted of BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL

Question 7

Sweet v Parsely

Answer 7

“Whenever a section is slient as to Mens Rea there is a presumption of Mens Rea”

Question 8

Gammon v AG for Hong Kong

Answer 8

D were builders in HK. One of their building collapsed due to builders failure too follow original plans. PC gave guidelines on SL

Question 9

Gammon Guidelines

Answer 9

1. Presumption of MR can only be rebutted if there is clear wording to that effect
2. Presumption is particulary strong in Criminal Offences
3. Presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concered with social concern on public policy
4. SL should only apply if it will help enforce law by encouraging greater vigilance

Question 10

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain

Answer 10

CLEAR WORDING
Appellant was a pharmacist who was convicted under Medicines Act of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription. D had supplied the drugs on the basis of a fraudulent prescription, they had no knowledge of this.
HoL upheld conviction as other sections of the act had Mens Rea requirements where this section did not. Therefore it was clearly omitted on purpose and thus was parliaments intention for this to be a SL offence

Question 11

Alphacell v Woodward

Answer 11

SOCIAL CONCERN
Appellant was a factory owner who was convicted of causing a polluted matter to enter the river under the Rivers Act. The offence related to an underground pipe that had become disconnected due to a blockage. The appellant was unaware of this and it was not alleged they were negligent. Ad a matter of public policy the offence was one of SL and therefore the appeal was dismissed and conviction upheld.

Question 12

R v Blake

Answer 12

TRULEY CRIMINAL
D was broadcasting a pirate radio station and was convicted of violating the Wireless Telegraphy Act.
CoA held that the offence was a SL and that and the presumption should be stronger as it’s a truly criminal offence, yet as a matter of public policy namely the frequency is used by a emergency services, the imposition of SL would encourage greater responsibility.

Question 13

Lim Chin Aik v Regina

Answer 13

ENFORCING LAW BY GREATER VIGILANCE
- D was convicted of contravening an order prohibiting his entry into Singapore, even though he had no knowledge of such an orders existence.
Lord Evershed in allowing the appeal held the view that SL could only be justidfied when knowledge of the offence would promote the observance of the law.

Question 14

Harrow LBH v Shah and Shah

Answer 14

DUE DILLIGANCE
D’s newagent buissness sold a lottery ticket to a 13year old in violation of the National Lottery Act.
As SL offence found guilty despite their due dilligance

Question 15

Cundy v Le Cocq

Answer 15

Landlord accused of selling alocholt o someone already drunk in violation of Licensing Act.
Mistake not valid as SL offence