Strict Liability Flashcards
Sweet v Parsley 1970
cannabis, tenants
Gammon Ltd v AG Hong Kong 1985
The appellant was a builder who had deviated from plans in the construction of a building. It was an offence to deviate from the plans in a substantial way. The appellant accepted he had deviated from the plans but he believed that the deviation was only minor rather than substantial.
Held:
The offence was one of strict liability and therefore his belief was irrelevant and his conviction upheld.
In determining whether an offence is one of strict liability there is a presumption that mens rea is required. This presumption may be rebutted where:
- The crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime; or
- The crime is one of social concern; or
- The wording of the Act indicates strict liability; or
- The offence carries a heavy penalty.
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass 1972
Tesco was offering a discount on washing powder which was advertised on posters displayed in stores. Once they ran out of the lower priced product the stores began to replace it with the regularly priced stock. The manager failed to take the signs down and a customer was charged at the higher price. Tesco was charged under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for falsely advertising the price of washing powder. In its defence Tesco argued that the company had taken all reasonable precautions and all due diligence, and that the conduct of the manager could not attach liability to the corporation.The House of Lords accepted the defence and found that the manager was not a part of the “directing mind” of the corporation and therefore his conduct was not attributable to the corporation. The corporation had done all it could to enforce the rules regarding advertising.
Lord Reid held that, in order for liability to attach to the actions of a person, it must be the case that “The person who acts is not speaking or acting for the company. He is acting as the company and his mind which directs his acts is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then that guilt is the guilt of the company.”
In the House of Lords Tesco was successful with their defence showing that,
a store manager was classed as ‘another person’, and,
a system of delegating responsibility to that person was performance of due diligence, not avoidance of it
The store manager was not the directing mind and will of the company - the company had done all it could to avoid committing an offence and the offence was the fault of another person (an employee). The company was acquitted.
Dean v John Menzies 1981
The limited company was charged with exposing and having for sale obscene and indecent. Sheriff said it was not competent to prosecute body corporate for a common law offence. The prosecute appealed.( diss. Lord Cameron) that a body corporate was not, at common law, capable of exhibiting the human characteristics of shameless and indecent conduct, and that it was accordingly incompetent to libel such conduct against a body corporate in a criminal complaint.
Purcell Meats v McLeod 1987
charged with attempt to defraud the Board of Agricultural Produce, not capable of forming mens rea - defence; appeal refused. the acts and the guilty mind of an individual acting as the company could be the acts and guilt of the company (depending on his status within the company) - prosecution succeed. It was held that it is competent to charge a limited company with common law crime of attempted.
Transco plc v HMA 2004
In the case, a public gas transporter was charged with breaking the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s.3 and s.33(1) in respect to a gas explosion, which resulted in the death of four people. It was held that Transco had “shown a complete and utter disregard for the public,” The court ruled that it was possible to prosecute for culpable homicide; However, it is possible to convict of culpable homicide only if the court could identify an individual or group of individuals being a directing mind in the company; therefore, the charges of culpable homicide were irrelevant and subsequently dismissed. The company was later prosecuted on the charge of health and safety and fined £15m.[citation needed]
This case, along with others of this type paved the way for major legislative changes. This is area is now governed by the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act 1995 s 49
wearing “any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed”
ffence of having in public place article with blade or point.
(1)Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence and liable—
