Strict liability Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is a strict liability offence?

A

One where mens rea is not required as to at least one element of the actus reus.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Give the facts of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986).

A

D supplied medicines without a prescription, the prescription handed to him was fraudulent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What does the case of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985) demonstrate?

A

When interpreting statute there is always a presumption that mens rea is required.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Give the facts of Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985)

A

The defendants were charged with deviating from building regulations in a material way from the approved plan.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does the case of B v DPP (2000) demonstrate?

A

When interpreting statute there is always a presumption that mens rea is required.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Does the defendant have to perform the actus reus voluntarily for a strict liability offence?

A

Yes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is an absolute liability offence?

A

One where no mens rea is required at all.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Does the defendant have to perform the actus reus voluntarily for an absolute liability offence?

A

No.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Give the facts of Larsonneur (1933).

A

D was from a foreign country and had been ordered to leave the UK so she went to Ireland. However, the Irish police found her and deported her to England and was convicted of ‘being an alien whom leave to land in the UK was refused’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Give the facts of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983).

A

D was drunk and was taken to hospital on a stretcher, where they found he was not ill so he was told to leave. He was found in a corridor, so the police were called and he was taken outside and charged with being found drunk in a public highway.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Which presumption can be rebutted if Parliament intended to create a strict liability offence?

A

The presumption that mens rea is required when interpreting statute.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Give the facts of R v G (2008).

A

G, 15, had sex with a girl who he thought was 15 but she was actually 12. He was found guilty of rape of a child under 13.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does the case of R v G (2008) demonstrated?

A

The presumption in favour of mens rea can be rebutted if Parliament intended to create a strict liability offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Can a defendant be convicted if their voluntary act accidentally led to a prohibited consequence?

A

Yes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Give the facts of Callow v Tillstone (1900).

A

A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption which the vet certified it was. However, it was not fit for human consumption, so the butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the defence of due diligence?

A

The defence is that the defendant has done all they can to avoid committing an offence.

17
Q

When is the defence of due diligence available?

A

There is no sensible pattern as to when the defence is available.

18
Q

Give the facts of Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and Shah (1999).

A

The defendants owned a newsagents and frequently warned their staff not to sell lottery tickets to minors. One of their staff did so, and the defendants were convicted.

19
Q

Which defence is not available for strict liability offences?

A

The defence of mistake.

20
Q

Give the facts of Cundy v Le Cocq (1884).

A

D was charged with selling intoxicated liquor to a drunken person, when in fact the customer did nothing to display any insobriety.

21
Q

Give the facts of Sherras v De Rutzen (1895).

A

D was charged with supplying alcohol to a police officer on duty, but the police officer had taken his ‘on-duty’ armband off so there was no way the defendant could have known. He was not convicted.

22
Q

What are the three common law strict liability offences?

A

Public nuisance, criminal libel and outraging public decency.

23
Q

Give the facts of Gibson and Sylveire (1991).

A

Gibson made an art exhibit featuring earrings made of freeze-dried human foetuses. Sylveire put the exhibit on display. Both were convicted of outraging public decency.

24
Q

Give the facts of Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News (1979).

A

A poem was published, describing homosexual acts done to Christ after his death and his alleged acts during his life. The editor and publisher were convicted of blasphemy.

25
Q

Which offence used to be a common law strict liability offence?

A

Blasphemous libel.

26
Q

Which offence is now a statutory strict liability offence?

A

Criminal contempt of court.

27
Q

Of what nature are most strict liability offences?

A

Regulatory.

28
Q

What is a regulatory offence?

A

One in which no real moral issue is involved.

29
Q

What are the five Gammon tests?

A
  1. There is a presumption that mens rea is required.
  2. The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the words of the statute.
  3. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character.
  4. The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety.
  5. The presumption should only be displaced if this will encourage greater vigilance against the commission of the prohibited act.
30
Q

If the section in question is silent as to mens rea, yet other sections of the Act use mens rea words, what is the offence likely to be?

A

A strict liability offence.

31
Q

If the section in question is silent as to a defence of due diligence, yet other sections of the Act allow it, what is the offence likely to be?

A

A strict liability offence.

32
Q

Give five arguments for strict liability.

A
  1. Prevents danger to the public by encouraging greater vigilance.
  2. Easier to enforce and get a conviction for.
  3. Saves court time.
  4. Defence of due diligence can be provided where appropriate.
  5. Lack of blame can be taken into account when sentencing.
33
Q

Give five arguments against strict liability.

A
  1. Imposes guilt on those who are not blameworthy.
  2. Imposes guilt on those who are unaware of risks.
  3. There is no evidence that imposition of strict liability improves standards.
  4. Could be contrary to human rights.
  5. Social stigma is attached to some offences.
34
Q

Give three proposals for reform.

A
  1. Making it clear if the offence is strict liability or not in statute.
  2. Every strict liability offence should carry the defence of due diligence.
  3. Strict liability offences should never be punishable by imprisonment.