Strict Liability Flashcards
Storkwain (1986)
demonstrates strict liability
Larsonneur (1933)
demonstrates absolute liability
Prince (1875) and Hibbert (1869)
Not requiring mens rea for part of the offence is illustrated
Callow v Tillstone (1900)
Still guilty even if D is not at fault
Shah and Shah (1999)
No due diligence defence available
Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)
no defence of mistake
Gibson and Sylveire (1991)
outraging public decency was held to be strict liability
Lemon and Whitehorse v Gay News (1979)
once blasphemy was an offence of strict liability
Sweet v Parsley (1969)
Where the act doesn’t include any words indicating mens rea, the judges will start by presuming all criminal offenses require mens rea
Gammon (1984)
- look at words of the statute for words of mens rea
- is the act truly criminal
- is it an issue of social concern or public safety
- will a conviction help promote better standards
Alphacell (1972)
SL when pollution was caused
B v DPP (2000)
the more serious the offence the greater the presumption that mens rea is required
Blake (1997)
even illegal transmissions were an issue of social concern
Environment Agency v Brook (1998)
still guilty even if unaware of risk
R v G (2008
no breach of article 6
