strict liability

Question 1

Question: What is the key characteristic of strict liability offenses?

Answer 1

Answer: There is no need to prove mens rea in relation to at least one element of the actus reus (Callow v Tillstone, Storkwain).

Question 2

Question: How does strict liability differ from absolute liability or state of affairs cases?

Answer 2

Answer: Strict liability requires the actus reus but no mens rea, while absolute liability involves a state of affairs where D is liable regardless of any voluntary act (Larsonneur, Winzar).

Question 3

Question: What is the first principle from the Gammon case regarding strict liability?

Answer 3

Answer: The presumption in favor of mens rea applies to statutory offences, meaning statutory offences are unlikely to be strict liability unless the statute explicitly states otherwise.

Question 4

Question: Under Gammon, when can the presumption of mens rea be displaced?

Answer 4

Answer: The presumption can only be displaced if the words of the statute clearly or by necessary implication indicate strict liability.

Question 5

Question: How can strict liability be justified in terms of public safety?

Answer 5

Answer: Strict liability can apply if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, such as public safety (Blake, Shah and Shah, Callow v Tillstone).

Question 6

Question: What is the significance of whether an offence is “truly criminal” in nature in strict liability cases?

Answer 6

Answer: If the offense is truly criminal in character, the presumption in favor of mens rea is particularly strong, making strict liability less likely (B v DPP, Sweet v Parsley).

Question 7

Question: What is the purpose of strict liability in relation to enforcing the law?

Answer 7

Answer: Strict liability should help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act (Lim Chin Aik).

Question 8

Question: Does a mistake provide a defense in strict liability offenses?

Answer 8

Answer: No, the defense of mistake is not available in strict liability offenses (Cundy v Le Cocq, Sherras v De Rutzen).

Question 9

Question: What is the “due diligence” defense in strict liability cases?

Answer 9

Answer: For some strict liability offenses, if the defendant can show they did everything within their power to prevent the offense, they may have a defense (e.g., s24 Trade Descriptions Act 1968, Tesco v Natrass).

Question 10

Question: Can the defense of due diligence always be used in strict liability offenses?

Answer 10

Answer: No, the defense of due diligence is limited and only applies when explicitly provided by statute (Callow v Tillstone, Smedleys v Breed).

Question 11

Question: What is an example of a strict liability offense that involves a truly criminal offense?

Answer 11

Answer: Some sexual offenses are strict liability, as indicated explicitly by Parliament in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (R v G).

Question 12

Question: How does statutory interpretation play a role in determining strict liability?

Answer 12

Answer: Mens rea words in statutes, such as ‘knowingly’ or ‘wilfully,’ point to the need to prove mens rea, indicating the offense is not strict liability (Warner, Empress Cars).

Question 13

Question: What is the presumption regarding strict liability and regulatory offenses?

Answer 13

Answer: Most strict liability offenses are regulatory in nature and often concern public health and safety, such as regulations on food and drink (Alphacell v Woodward).