Strict Liability

Question 1

What is absolute liability?

Answer 1

Occurs when = no AR or MR
= rare, but have been know to occur
‘Status crimes’ - D = ‘found in a state of affiars’

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent

Question 2

Give 2 examples of absolute liability cases

Answer 2

1. Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (drunk, highway)

2. Larsonneur (Alien)

Question 3

Describe the case of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent

What offence does this case involve?

Answer 3

Drunken D = removed from hospital by police
Arrested + found G of being drunk on the highway
Even though police officers had put him there

example of absolute liability offence

Question 4

Describe the case of Larsonneur

What offence does this case involve?

Answer 4

Woman tried to escape to Ireland after visa for England expired
Irish police brought her back to England
= arrested for being an illegal alien ‘found’ in the UK
Contrary to Aliens Order of 1920

Question 5

What is SL?

Answer 5

AR only needs to be proven
AR = voluntary
Even if inadvertently caused prohibited consequence, still results in a conviction (Callow v Tillstone)
Prosecution = released of need to prove MR

e.g. Prince and Bibbert (s55 OAPA)

Question 6

What does the AR for SLO have to be?

Answer 6

Voluntary
Even in inadvertently caused prohibited consequence, still results in a conviction

Callow v Tillsotone (1900)

Question 7

How many SLO are there?

Answer 7

Over 4,000
Majority = created by statutes = regulatory in nature
e.g. food + hygiene standards

But = some cannon law SLO
e.g. public nuisance

Question 8

Why shouldn’t SL be over used?

Answer 8

= extremely harsh

= difficult to justify using SL for serious offences

Question 9

Give examples of when SL has been justified

Answer 9

1. Protection against pollution
2. Encourages corporations to take greater care
3. Promotion of health + safety
4. Protection of public morality
5. Protection of social dangers
6. Efficiency
7. Useful for quasi crimes

Question 10

Describe the case of Alphacell v Woodward 1972

Answer 10

Rivers (Prevention of Pollution Act ) 1951
Offence for anyone to pollute the river
Claimed they shouldn’t be penalised; = unaware of pollution
Ct: knowledge = irrelevant
AR = present, sufficient + Ds = penalised

Question 11

How does SL encourage corporations to take greater care against pollution?

Answer 11

Imposes penalty regardless of fault
Therefore increases incentive to guard against undesirable activities
Emphasised by Lord Salmon

Question 12

What did Lord Salmon say about SL?

Answer 12

‘Encourages factory owners to not only take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they don’t cause it’

Question 13

Who claims that SL induces organisations to aim for higher and higher standards?

Answer 13

Smith + Pearson

Question 14

What does Brett argue?

Answer 14

1. = no evidence that higher standard care results from imposition of SL
2. May actually act as disincentive - going to get prosecuted no matter what, why take any precautions
3. Cheaper to pay fines than alter work practices
4. = problems with enforcement, only 900 inspectors responsible for over 60,000 workplaces

Question 15

Describe the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain

Answer 15

D = pharmacist
Unknowingly prescribed drugs on basis of forged prescriptions
Convicted under Medicines Act 1968