Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law - Strict Liability > Strict Liability > Flashcards

Strict Liability Flashcards

1
Q

What case illustrates strict liability?

A

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

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

What case happened in 1900?

A

Callow v Tillstone

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

In what year was the case of Callow v Tillstone?

A

1900

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

What happened in the case of Callow v Tillstone (1900)?

A

A butcher was convicted of selling neat which was unfit for human consumption despite the fact certified the best as safe

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

What types of crimes are often those of strict liability?

A

Regulatory offences such as food and hygiene or environmental regulations

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

What is the problem with strict liability?

A

It is extremely harsh and therefore must not be overused

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

Briefly, what are the arguments in favour of strict liability?

A 
Protection against pollution
Promotion of health and safety 
Protect public morality 
Protection of social dangers such as drugs and unlawful weapons 
Quasi crimes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What case illustrates strict liability provides protection against pollution?

A

Alphacell v Woodward (1972)

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

What case happened in 1972?

A

Alphacell v Woodward

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

What year did the case of Alphacell v Woodward happen?

A

1972

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

What happened in the case of Alphacell v Woodward (1972)?

A

The Rivers (prevention of pollution) act 1951 made it an offence to pollute a river. The defendant claimed they should not be penalised as they were unaware of the pollution.

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

What was the outcome of Alphacell v Woodward (1972)?

A

The court held that knowledge was irrelevant. The fact the actus reus was present was sufficient

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

What did Smith and Pearson state?

A

Strict liability does induce organisations to aim at higher standards

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

Who contradicts Smith and Pearsons statement?

A

Brett

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

What does Brett argue?

A

Brett argued there is no evidence for a higher standard or care as a result of strict liability.
If prosecutions can be prosecuted regardless of taking precautions they may take none whatsoever.
It’s cheaper to pay fines than alter bad working practices

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

What case supports that strict liability promotes health and safety?

A

Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkain (1986)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the case of Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkain (1986) relevant too?

A

Promotion of health and safety aided by strict liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

In what year was the case of Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkain?

A

1986

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What case happened in 1986?

A

Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What happened in the case of Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkain (1986)?

A

The defendant was a pharmacist who unknowingly prescribed drugs on the basis of a forged prescription. He was convicted under the Medicine act 1986

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What’s the outcome of Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkain (1986)?

A

He was convicted under the medicines act 1968

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is strict liability?

A

When the prosecution is relieved of the need to prove the men’s rea, they only have to prove the actus reus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What case supports that strict liability aids the protection of public morality?

A

R v Lemon (1979)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the case of R v Lemon relevant too?

A

That strict liability helps protect public morality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What case happened in 1979?

A

R v lemon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

In what year was the case of R v Lemon?

A

1979

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What happened in the case of R v Lemon (1979)?

A

Gay news published a poem and some drawings depicting various acts of sodomy on the crucified body of Christ. He argued he did not intend for the material to be blasphemous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What was the outcome of R v Lemon (1979)?

A

It was held irrelevant he did not intend for the material to be blasphemous and strict liability was imposed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What case supports that strict liability helps to protect the public from social dangers such as drugs and unlawful weapons?

A

Howells (1974)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What is the case of Howells (1974) relevant too?

A

That the imposition of strict liability protects social dangers such as drugs and unlawful weapons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What case happened in 1974?

A

R v Howells

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

In what year was the case of R v Howells?

A

1974

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What happened in the case of R v Howells (1974)?

A

The defendants conviction for not having a firearm certificate was upheld despite the fact the gun was an antique and he did not need to have one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What attitude do the courts have to social dangers and strict liability?

A

They have a harsh approach

35
Q

When can the imposition of liability on offences not be justified?

A

If it results in a loss of Liberty, this leads to punishment of the innocent

36
Q

When was there a loss of liberty as strict liability was wrongly imposed?

A

Sweet v Parsley (1970)

37
Q

What case happened in 1970?

A

Sweet v Parsley

38
Q

In what year was Sweet v Parsley?

A

1970

39
Q

What happened in the case of Sweet v Parsley (1970)?

A

The defendant sublet her house and only visited occasionally to collect the post and rent. After being provided with information the police searched the house and found lsd and cannabis

40
Q

What was the outcome of the case of Sweet v Parsley (1970)?

A

Initially she was found guilty of managing a premises where were used for the consumption of drugs contrary to the dangerous drugs act 1965. On appeal the House of Lords quashed her conviction as it was too harsh

41
Q

What is the case of G (2008) relevant too?

A

The argument that strict liability is a breach of article 6 of the human rights act 1998

42
Q

What year was the human rights act?

A

1998

43
Q

What year was the dangerous drugs act?

A

1965

44
Q

What year was the Rivers (prevention of pollution act)?

A

1951

45
Q

What year was the medicines act?

A

1968

46
Q

What case was in 1951?

A

Rivers (prevention of pollution act)

47
Q

What act was in 1968?

A

The medicine act

48
Q

What act was made in 1998?

A

The human rights act

49
Q

What act was made in 1965?

A

The dangerous drugs act

50
Q

What happened in the case of G (2008)?

A

A 15 year old bit has consensual sex with a 12 year old girl. He was charged with the rape of a girl under 13. He argued he believed her to be 15.

51
Q

What case happened in 2008?

A

G

52
Q

In what year was the case of G?

A

2008

53
Q

What was the outcome of G (2008)?

A

The belief and her consent was deemed irrelevant, the sexual offences act 2003 declared the case one of strict liability.

54
Q

What act was made in 2003?

A

Sexual offences act

55
Q

In what year was the sexual offences act made?

A

2003

56
Q

What are quasi crimes?

A

Trivial offences which carry little or no stigma (otherwise known as regulatory offences)

57
Q

What is an example of a quasi crime?

A

The road traffic accident act 1984

58
Q

What act was created in 1984?

A

The road traffic act

59
Q

In what year was the road traffic act created?

A

1984

60
Q

Why is strict liability good for quasi crimes?

A

Strict liability regulates such areas without being harmful to the individual

61
Q

Briefly, how do courts determine if a crime is one of strict liability?

A

They look to the wording of the statute

They look at Gammon ltd v A.G of Hong Kong (1985)

62
Q

What proposed reforms strict liability?

A

Draft criminal liability (mental element) bill 1978

63
Q

What did the Draft criminal liability (mental element) bill 1978 propose?

A

That parliament should set out in the legislation if it is a strict liability offence or not. This would prevent confusion and inconsistencies

64
Q

What case happened in 1985?

A

Gammon ltd v A.G of Hong Kong

65
Q

When was the case of Gammon ltd v A.G of Hong Kong?

A

1985

66
Q

What does the case of Gammon ltd v A.G of Hong Kong (1985) set out?

A

When the court can and cannot rebut the presumption of men’s rea:

1) the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character
2) it can be displaced of the situations is one where statute is concerned with with social concerns or public safety
- but this only applies of impairing strict liability will promote the objects of the statute
3) it’s more likely to be imposed if it’s a regulatory offence

67
Q

What what circumstances is strict liability less likely to be imposed?

A

1) the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character

68
Q

When is strict liability more likely to be imposed?

A

2) it can be displaced of the situations is one where statute is concerned with with social concerns or public safety
- but this only applies of impairing strict liability will promote the objects of the statute
3) it’s more likely to be imposed if it’s a regulatory offence

69
Q

When courts look at statute what do they do?

A

Look to see if the statute contains words such as knowingly or intentionally or recklessly. If these words are present its suggests mens rea is required. If not then strict liability could be imposed

70
Q

What suggests a statute requires the prosecution to prove mens rea?

A

Words such as intentionally, recklessly or knowingly

71
Q

What is the purpose of the due diligence defence?

A

To allow the defendant to be acquitted if they have genuinely not been negligent and have taken complete care

72
Q

What defence can allow people to be acquitted of a strict liability offence?

A

Due diligence defence

73
Q

What defence is unavailable for strict liability offences?

A

The defence of mistake

74
Q

What case illustrates that the defence of mistake is unavailable for crimes of strict liability?

A

Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

75
Q

What does the case of Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) illustrate?

A

That the defence of mistake is unavailable for crimes if strict liability

76
Q

In what year was the case of Cundy v Le Cocq?

A

1884

77
Q

What case happened in 1884?

A

Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

78
Q

What happened in the case of Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)?

A

The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a drunk person even though it was not obvious the customer was drunk

79
Q

What case is relevant to the defence of due diligence?

A

Tesco LTD v Nattrass (1972)

80
Q

What is the case of Tesco LTD v Nattrass (1972) relevant to?

A

The due diligence defence

81
Q

What case happened in 1972?

A

Tesco LTD v Nattrass

82
Q

In what year was the case of Tesco LTD v Nattrass?

A

1972

83
Q

What happened in the case of Tesco LTD v Nattrass (1972)?

A

Radiant washing powder had been advertised on sale at a cheaper price that it actually was. This was due to the negligence of the store manager who has not checked the shelves properly, due diligence defence was allowed

A2 Law - Strict Liability (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions