Strict Liability

Question 0

Prince (1875)

S.55 OAPA 1861 made it a crime to take any unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of parents or without will of parents

Answer 0

D ran off with girl he believed was 18. She was 13
Charged under s.55
AR= unmarried, lived at home, under 16, taken without consent
Court decided for all but age you need MR

Question 1

What is a strict liability offence

Answer 1

A crime that doesn’t require MR

Question 2

Hibbert (1869)

S.55 OAPA 1861 made it a crime to take any unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of parents or without will of parents

Answer 2

D had sex with 14 y/o. He knew she was under 16 but didn’t know she lived at home. Acquitted.

Question 3

Why do we have strict liability offences

Answer 3

To protect the public

Encourage high standard of behaviour

Question 4

Callow and Tillstone (1900)

Answer 4

D was butcher. Asked vet to check if meat was fit to eat vet said yes. People got ill from meat.
Conviction upheld bc as soon as meat was sold he was guilty.

Question 5

Smedleys v breed (1924)

Answer 5

D’s were food manufacturers. A caterpillar was found in 4 tins. Convicted of selling food unfit for human consumption. Conviction upheld

Question 6

Alphacell

Answer 6

Company had expensive equipment to stop pollution going into river. Unbeknownst to them the equipment had broke. Charged with causing pollution to enter river
Conviction upheld

Question 7

Shah and shah

Answer 7

D’s owned a new agents and trained staff not to sell lottery tickets to people under 16. Employee sold ticket to a 13 yo. D’s charged under s.13 of national lottery act.
Conviction upheld

Question 8

What is a statutory example of a strict liability crime

Answer 8

S.5 road traffic act States it’s an offence to drive with excess alcohol in breath, urine or blood. Don’t need MR

Question 9

How many statutory offences are strict liability

Answer 9

3500

Question 10

What is the first principle courts have to follow when deciding if a crime needs MR or is strict liability and what is the relevant case

Answer 10

The courts will presume MR is required
Sweet v Parsley
D was charged with ‘being concerned in the management of a property used for drug taking’. Judge said it was SL. judge said ‘there has been for centuries a presumption that Parliament didn’t intend to make criminals out of those who were blameworthy’ therefore courts must presume you had MR

Question 11

What is the second principle courts follow when deciding wether an offence needs MR or is SL and what is the relevant case

Answer 11

2) the more serious the offence the more likely MR is required
B v DPP
15 yo asked 15 yo to perform oral on bus he thought she was older. Charged.
COA quashed it and said ‘where the crime is more serious there is greater presumption of MR’ this is bc the more severe the punishment the greater the stigma

Question 12

What is the 3rd principle the courts should follow when deciding if MR was needed or it is was a SL. What is the relevant case

Answer 12

The court should examine wording of act. When a statue contains words such as ‘intentionally, maliciously, recklessly and knowingly’ MR will be required. The court may also need to examine other parts of act as seen in…
Cundy v Le Cocq
D charged with ‘selling alcohol to an intox person’ D argues he thought man was sober. Judge said s.13 was strict liability. Judge looked at other parts of the act which used the words ‘knowingly’ which means parliament intended it to be SL

Question 13

What is the 4th principle courts must follow when deciding wether a crime needed MR or was SL

Answer 13

Is the offence a ‘true’ crime or a ‘quasi’ crime

Question 14

What is a true crime

Answer 14

A crime that requires MR and is considered immoral e.g. Murder, rape, assault etc

Question 15

What is a quasi crime

Answer 15

A crime that is more likely to be SL and is a technical breach of the law e.g. Driving, food hygiene and public safety

E.g. Shah and Shah, Alphacell, Cundy, Smedley v Breed and Callow and Tillstone.

Question 16

What is the 5th principle courts must follow when deciding wether an offence requires MR or is SL

Answer 16

Is there a degree of social danger

The greater the Social danger the more likely it is to be SL which explains why food hygiene is a SL

Question 17

What are the 5 gammon principles

Answer 17

1) must presume MR to begin with
2) presumption is strong if true crime
3) presumption applies to statutory offences and can only be rebutted if it’s clear parliament wanted it to be SL
4) presumption can be rebutted when statue deals with social concern
5) when statue is concerned with such an issue it can only be rebutted if people are less likely to do it (preventive)

Question 18

What’s a statutory offence

Answer 18

An offence created by parliament

Question 19

Advantages of SL

Answer 19

Public protection
Environment protection 
High standard of care
Ensure businesses are run correctly 
Speeds up justice
Easier for prosecution

Question 20

Disadvantages of SL

Answer 20

Harsh e.g. shah and shah
Imposes guilt on people who aren’t blameworthy
No evidence SL deters

Question 21

Reform proposals for SL

Answer 21

Difficult for judge to know if it’s meant to be SL
Draft criminal code says parliament should state wether it’s SL or not
‘Due diligence’- defence for people charged with SL if you can prove you took preventative measures.