Strict Liability Flashcards
Strict Liability
Strict Liability means that if an offence is committed you would not need to prove the men’s rea but you would need to prove the actus reus.
Strict Liability-Case
An example of this is PSGB v Storkwain, which was the appellant who was a pharmacist was convicted of an offence under S.58 Medicines Act where he was prescribing drugs with out a signature from a medical practitioner as they were forged but even though he had no men’s rea he still committed the offence meaning he had actus reus.
Difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
The difference between strict Liability and absolute Liability is small as neither require men’s rea but the difference is that absolute Liability does not have to have voluntary actus reus.
Absolute Liability-Case
An example of this is Larsonneur 1933, where a French women was deported from Ireland to England but open arrival was arrested for being an illegal ‘alien’ even though she did not want to be in the country.
Strict Liability or not?
Even though the majority of strict Liability cases are statutory offence, parliament didn’t make it clear often that men’s rea is required so it is for the judges to decide if an offence is one of strict Liability or not.
Lord Scarman
Lord Scarman in the case Gammon (HK) Ltd vs A-G for Hong Kong stated that a judge must presume that men’s rea is always required before a person can be charged for a criminal offence. Lord Scarman Set our four principles in this case also-
1) Is the offence a regulatory in nature or true crime
If the offence is regulatory in nature it would not be criminal, have no moral issues involved or be minor.
1.1) Sweet vs Parsely
In this case Ms.Sweet sublet her apartment to a group of tenants, she still had a room in the apartment but rarely visited. The police broke in and found cannabis and Ms.Sweet was convicted with holding a peppery to smoke cannabis in she was convicted under s.5 dangerous drugs act 1965 (now replaced). She argued that she did not know what was going on and had no way in knowing what was going on.
1.2) Lord Reid
She appealed and had her conviction overturned as Lord Reid said acknowledging strict Liability should be only used for quasi crimes where there is no real moral issue involved. It was felt that strict Liability was inappropriate and the offence should be classed as a true crime which requires men’s rea. As she did possess men’s rea her conviction was quashed.
2)Did parliament intend to create and offence of strict Liability by using certain words in statute
Some words that are used when a statute is drafted that point to men’s rea. These ‘Men’s rea’ words include; intentionally, recklessly and knowingly. Even though there is no official list some words linked with no men’s rea being required are possession and cause.
2.1)Case-Certain words for statute
In the case Alphacell v Woodward, defendants charged with polluting a river even though they didn’t know it was, they were still charged.
3) Does the offence relate to an issue of social concern
A social concern is something that is a concern to general society at a given time. If you add strict Liability to crimes that relate to issues of social concern it is felt that it will have extra vigilance and care on people not to commit it. This would be appropriate only for regulatory offences and the Sweet v Parsley case is still applicable.
3.1)Case-Harrow London Borough Council v Shah
An example of this is Harrow London Boroughs Council v Shah where they sold a lottery ticket to a under age kid who they thought was over 16 but this would not matter as they broke the law as soon as they sold the lottery ticket
4)Gravity of the punishment
The more serious the criminal offence and the punishment that can be given, the less likely it is to be one of strict Liability. With Strict Liability defendants can be convicted with out fault. This can be a problem as small penalties might not always be a deterrent.
4)Case
Callow vs Tillstone 1900
The damage of a small business’ reputation can have a bigger effect than a small fine. Butcher sells bad meat but was told by a vet that the carcass is eatable.
