Strict Liability Flashcards
What type of offences are strict liability
Summary
What do SLO aim to do
Punish but put pressure on inefficient to do their duty in the interest of the public
For nearly all SLO what must be proved
The acute reus
What do SLO need to be distinguished from
Absolute liability or state of affairs offences
An ALO is
Where d can be punished even though his conduct is not voluntary. So d can have no intention. R v larsonneur
What must be there for a SLO
Voluntary
What is there a presumption for in all offences
That men’s rea is required for the actus reus
What are strict liability offences
Offences that require men’s rea for the acrid reus
Which case demonstrates that for all offences there is a presumption of men’s rea
R v prince
Facts of r v prince
Charger under s55 offences against the person act for taking an unmarried girl under 16. he believed she was over 16. Therefore he didn’t have men’s rea however men’s rea is not required in order to protect young girls
D may be guilty of a crime without any proof of fault despite not being to blame he will have no
Excuse no matter how careful he has been
No excuse no matter how careful case
Callow v till stone
Follow v till stone facts
D a butcher asked a vet to examine carcus and offered it for sale. The meat was not fit and charger with exposing unfit meat for human consumption even though he had exercised due care
Most slo are statutory such as
S4 road traffic act even if unaware of condition or not responsible for it eg spiked drinks
Some slo common law eg outraging public decency case
Gibson and sylveire
Brief facts of Gibson and sylveire
Freeze dry foetus art exhibition no men’s rea was required
Protection against selling unit food
Smedleys v breed
It matters not that 3 million tins of uncontaminated food is sold
Protection against pollution
Alphacell v Woodward
Unaware that pumps became obstructed
Protection against unlawful weapons
R v Howells
How is it decided if an offence is slo
Court decide by statutory interpretation
What do judges confused in deciding slo offences
If statute is clear that the offence is slo eg road traffic act
If there is no indication there is a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals out of unblameworthy people eg sweet v parsley
Which case went on to consider 4 other facts
Gammon (Hong Kong) v ag of Hong Kong
4 factors from gammon
Presumption that men’s rea can be displaced is this is clear by the words of he implications of the words
Presumption is strong for truly criminal offences
Presumption can be displaced if act is concerned with public safety or social concern
Sl only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance
What is a quasi criminal offence
Not criminal in a real sense designed to protect consumer or regulate trade, usually little sigma attached eg Harlow lbc v Shan
What is a truly criminal offence
Cause physical harm or loss or an immoral, courts will be more reluctant to infer sl because of sigma eg b v DPP
Harrow lbc v Shan
Sold lottery ticket u 13
B v DPP
D asked 13 year old to have oral sex
Turkey criminal
Where a section of an act is silent as to whether Mr is required courts will look at other section for example
S58(2) of the medicines act in storkwain was silent all though from other sections concluded that s58(2) was slo
Storkwain
Chemist convicted of supplying drugs without a bald prescription even though he didn’t know the signature had been forged
Where other sections of an act allow for due diligence but another section does not then this is an indicator that offence mentioned without due diligence is an sl for example in
Harrow lbc v Shan
If an offence only applies to a specific class of person who are engaged in a particular activity eg food drugs offence is likely to be
Slo
If offence applies to society as a whole is is likely to be
A truly criminal offence
Is an act includes word using it is an slo eg
Warner v Mpc who possessed perfume thinking it was drugs
It act says cause it will be an slo eg
Empress car co who caused pollution of a river
In the word includes knowingly, intentionally or permitted not an slo eg
James and son v smee
A person or a company without men’s rea may be liable for acts of another under
Vicarious liability
Blake
Protection against illegal broadcasts
No defence of mistake is available for an slo case
Cundy v or cocq
Case details cundy v le cocq
Found guilty of selling alcohol to a drunk person despite not knowing they were drunk . This is an observable fact therefore liable
There was not an observable fact case
Sherras v de rutzen
Sold alcohol to officer on duty because he had no arm band on
