Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

*ANEW L-Strict Liability > Strict Liability at common law > Flashcards

Strict Liability at common law Flashcards

1
Q

What have nearly all strict liability offences been created by?

A

by statute

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

What is strict liability very rare in?

A

common law offences

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

What are the only 3 existing common law offences which are ones of strict liability?

A
  • public nuisance
  • criminal libel
  • outraging public decency
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Which 2 common law offences of strict liability probably do not require mens rea?

A

public nuisance and criminal libel

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

In what case was outraging public decency held to be a strict liability offence?

A

Gibson and Sylveire 1991

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

What happened in the case Gibson and Sylveire 1991?

A

Gibson created an art exhibit using real human foetuses and put it on display in Sylveire’s art gallery, both men convicted of outraging public decency. Strict liability offence.

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

Why was the case of Gibson and Sylveire 1991 a strict liability offence?

A

as it did not have to be proved that D intended to outrage public decency or that D was reckless as to whether his conduct would have the effect of outraging public decency.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Gibson created an art exhibit using real human foetuses and put it on display in Sylveire’s art gallery, both men convicted of outraging public decency. Strict liability offence.
What case is this?

A

Gibson and Sylveire 1991

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

There used to be two other common law offences of strict liability other than?

  • public nuisance
  • criminal libel
  • outraging public decency
A

-blasphemous libel and criminal contempt of court

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

What case shows the old common law offence of strict liability, criminal contempt of court?

A

Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News 1979

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

What happened in the case of Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News 1979?

A

a poem published in Gay News described homosexual acts regarding Christ. The editor and publishers were convicted of blasphemy. HOL held it was not necessary to prove that the defendants intended to blaspheme.

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

a poem published in Gay News described homosexual acts regarding Christ. The editor and publishers were convicted of blasphemy. HOL held it was not necessary to prove that the defendants intended to blaspheme.
What case is this?

A

Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News 1979

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

Why does the common law offence of blasphemous libel no longer exist?

A

it was abolished by Parliament

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

What has criminal contempt of court now been made as?

A

a statutory offence

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

How many statutory offences are ones of strict liability?

A

about half of all, this amounts to over 3,500 offences.

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

What nature are most strict liability offences?

A

regulatory

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

What are 4 examples of regulatory natured strict liability offences?

A

regulating the sale of…

  • food
  • alcohol
  • gaming tickets
  • prevention of pollution
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What will strict liability offences created by an Act of Parliament not contain?

A

they will not contain any words requiring mens rea in their definition

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

Although strict liability offences created by an Act of Parliament will not contain any words requiring mens rea in their deffiniton, what will courts look at?

A

they will look at a number of factors before deciding that a statutory offence is one of strict liability

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

Strict liability is an area of law where the courts will use what?

A

statutory interpretation

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

What is the starting point in statutory interpretation?

A

presumptions of statutory interpretations, the presumption of mens rea

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

How do the courts decide whether an offence is one of strict liability?

A

they will start by assuming that mens rea is required

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

Although the courts will start statutory interpretation assuming that mens rea is required, what are they prepared to interpret the offence as?

A

as one of strict liability

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

When will the courts be prepared to interpret the offence as one of strict liability?

A

if Parliament have expressly or by implication indicated this in the relevant statute.

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

What do judges often have difficulty in deciding?

A

whether an offence is one of strict liability or not

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

What is the first rule when deciding whether an offence is one of strict liability or not?

A

the first rule is that where an Act of Parliament includes words indicating mens rea (knowingly, intentionally, ‘maliciously’, permitting) then the offence requires mens rea and is not one of strict liability

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

What are 4 words which may be used in an Act of Parliament to indicated mens rea?

A

maliciously
knowingly
permitting
intentionally

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

Why is Parliament often criticised?

A

for being silent about the need for mens rea in an Act of Parliament

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

What would solve the confusion of judges deciding whether an Act of Parliament would or would not be one of strict liability?

A

if it made clear in all sections which create a criminal offence whether mens rea was required or not

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

Which case made clear that in the event that an Act of Parliament does not include any words indicating mens rea the judges will start by presuming that all criminal offences require mens rea?

A

Sweet v Parsley 1969

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

What happened in the case of Sweet v Parsley 1969

A

D rented a farmhouse to students who the police found with cannabis. D was charged with being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin. D was unaware. Decided not guilty as the court assumed the offence required mens rea

32
Q

D rented a farmhouse to students who the police found with cannabis. D was charged with being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin. D was unaware. Decided not guilty as the court assumed the offence required mens rea
What case is this?

A

Sweet v Parsley 1969

33
Q

What case is the Gammon tests under?

A

Gammon Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong 1984

34
Q

What happened in the case of Gammon Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong 1984 and what had do be proved?

A

appellants charged with deviating from building work from an approved plan. It was necessary to decide whether it had to be proved that they knew that their deviation was material or whether the offence as one of strict liability

35
Q

In the case of Gammon Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong 1984, what did the Privy Council start with?

A

the presumption that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence, and that presumption applies to statutory offences.

36
Q

What 4 factors did the Privy Council go on to consider in the case of Gammon Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong 1984?

A
  • the presumption can only be displayed if this is clearly the effect of the words of the statute, or is implicated.
  • the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is ‘truly criminal’ in character
  • the presumption can only be displayed if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety
  • strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.
37
Q

Under the Gammon tests, when is a presumption particularly strong?

A

when the offence is truly criminal

38
Q

Under what 2 circumstances in the Gammon tests can a presumption be displaced?

A

1) if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effects of the words of the statute
2) If the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety

39
Q

Under the Gammon tests when should strict liability only apply?

A

when it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of a prohibited act

40
Q

Where words indicating mens rea are used, is this strict liability?

A

no

41
Q

What will the courts do if a particular section in an Act of Parliament is silent on the point at hand?

A

then they will look at other sections in the Act

42
Q

Why was the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd 1986 decided by the courts to be one of strict liability?

A

as the relevant Act of Parliament in that particular section was silent on mens rea while other sections had expressed provisions for mens rea.

43
Q

Why was the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd 1986 decided by the courts to be one of strict liability?

A

as the relevant Act of Parliament in that particular section was silent on mens rea while other sections had expressed provisions for mens rea. Indicating that Parliament intended the relevant section to be one of strict liability

44
Q

Why was the case of Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999 not allowed to use the defence of ‘due diligence’?

A

as although the section did not include any words indicating mens rea or any provision of ‘due diligence’, in other sections there was clear allowances for the defence of due diligence. This was an important part in the Divisional Courts decision that the offence was one of strict liability

45
Q

What did the Privy Council say in Gammon 1984 about presumption?

A

that the presumption that mens rea is required is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character

46
Q

Which offences are not thought of as being truly criminal offences?

A

those which are regulatory in nature

47
Q

Which offences are more likely to be strict liability?

A

those which are regulatory in nature and not thought of as ‘truly criminal’

48
Q

What are regulatory offences also referred to as?

A

quasi crimes

49
Q

What do quasi crimes affect?

A

large areas of everyday life

50
Q

Quasi crimes includes offences such as what?

A

breaches of regulations in a variety of fields

51
Q

In 2 words what does the case Callow v Tillstone 1900 refer to?

A

selling food

52
Q

What are 5 types of quasi crimes which are breaches of regulations?

A

-selling alcohol
-selling food
-building regulations
-sales of lottery tickets to under age child
regulations preventing pollution

53
Q

Briefly what does the cash Cundy v le Cocq 1884 concern?

A

selling of alcohol

54
Q

Briefly what does the case of Gammon 1984 concern?

A

building regulations

55
Q

Briefly what does the case Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999 concert?

A

sale of lottery ticket to underage child

56
Q

Briefly what does the case Alphacell Ltd v Woodward 1972 concern?

A

regulations preventing pollution from being caused

57
Q

What happened in the case of Alphacell 1972?

A

Company charged with polluting a river contrary to the Rivers Act 1951. No evidence that company knew of the pollution or that it been negligent. Held by HOL to be one of strict liability, company found guilty

58
Q

Why was the company found guilty in Alphacell 1972?

A

as it is of the ‘utmost public importance’ that rivers should not be polluted

59
Q

Why are offences which carry a penalty of imprisonment less likely to be interpreted as one of strict liability?

A

as it is more likely to be considered as ‘truly criminal’

60
Q

Briefly what does the case of B v DPP 2000 concerned about?

A

penalty of imprisonment

61
Q

What happened in the case of B v DPP 2000?

A

D a 15 year old boy asked 13 year old girl to give him a ‘shiner’ (oral sex), he did not know she was below aged 14, but was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency under the Children Act 1960. HOL quashed conviction as mens rea was required for the offence.

62
Q

D a 15 year old boy asked 13 year old girl to give him a ‘shiner’ (oral sex), he did not know she was below aged 14, but was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency under the Children Act 1960. HOL quashed conviction as mens rea was required for the offence.

What case is this?

A

B v DPP 2000

63
Q

Company charged with polluting a river contrary to the Rivers Act 1951. No evidence that company knew of the pollution or that it been negligent. Held by HOL to be one of strict liability, company found guilty
What case is this?

A

Alphacell 1972

64
Q

Why was D in B V DPP 2000 not found guilty of inciting a child under 14 to acts of gross indecency?

A

as the HOL said mens rea was required for the offence

65
Q

What case is an example of where the offence carries a penalty of imprisonment but the HOL still hold that it is one of strict liability?

A

Storkwain 1986

66
Q

What was the only situation in which the presumption of mens rea can be displaced, ruled by the Privy Council in the case of Gammon 1984?

A

where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern

67
Q

The Privy Council ruled that the only situation in which the presumption of mens rea can be displayed is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern. What does this allow?

A

this allows strict liability to be justified in a wide range of offences as issues of social concern can be seen to cover any activity which is a ‘potential danger to the public health, safety or morals’

68
Q

What must an activity be for it to be classed as a social concern?

A

‘potentially dangerous to the public health, safety or morals’

69
Q

What are 3 examples of regulations relating to social concern and 1 related to public safety?

A
  • food, drink, pollution

- possessions of guns

70
Q

What specifically has been held to be a matter of social concern?

A

transmitting an unlicensed broadcast

71
Q

What case decided that transmitting an unlicensed broadcast was an issue of social concern?

A

Blake 1997

72
Q

What happened in the case of Blake 1997?

A

D was convicted of using a station for wireless telegraphy without a license contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Defence said he did not know he was transmitting. Offence was one of strict liability. COA dismissed appeal.

73
Q

D was convicted of using a station for wireless telegraphy without a license contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Defence said he did not know he was transmitting. Offence was one of strict liability. COA dismissed appeal.
What case is this?

A

Blake 1997

74
Q

In Gammon 1984 what was the final point in considering whether strict liability should be imposed even when the statute is concerned with a social concern?

A

the final point was whether it would be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.

75
Q

Why may there be no reason to make an offence one of strict liability?

A

because the imposition of strict liability will not make the law more effective

76
Q

What happened in the case of Lim Chin Aik v The Queen 1963?

A

appellant was conceited under the Immigration Ordinance of Singapore for remaining in Singapore when he had been prohibited from entering by an order made by the Minister. D had no knowledge of the prohibition, and authorities did not try to bring it to his attention.
The Privy Council considered whether the imposition of strict liability would assist in the enforcement of the regulations, if it did not that then offence should not be one of strict liability

77
Q

appellant was conceited under the Immigration Ordinance of Singapore for remaining in Singapore when he had been prohibited from entering by an order made by the Minister. D had no knowledge of the prohibition, and authorities did not try to bring it to his attention.
The Privy Council considered whether the imposition of strict liability would assist in the enforcement of the regulations, if it did not that then offence should not be one of strict liability
What case is this?

A

Lim Chin Aik v The Queen 1963

*ANEW L-Strict Liability (4 decks)

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