Strict Liability Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

R v Strawbridge

A

The evidential burden begins with the defendant due to AR
It then shifts to the prosecution if reasonable doubt is established

Not used unless case is VERY SIMILAR

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

Civil Aviation Department v MacKenzie

A

Adopted the Canadian Sault Ste Marie
Three classes:
1. Mens rea offences
2. Strict liability
3. Absolute liability

Legal burden of proof on the defendant for public welfare offences (PWOs)

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

Turner v South Taranaki District Council

A

“Allow” and “permit” imply knowledge, thus suggesting actual knowledge or wilful blindness

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

Police v Lindsay

A

The purpose of such offences is to ensure compliance with court orders, not to protect the public at large, which is why they are not PWOs.

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

Tell v Maritime Safety Authority

A

Strict liability was appropriate since the offence aimed at protecting public safety, not punishing personal fault.

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

Jackson v Attorney-General

A

Strict liability prevents potential abuses and avoids disproportionate punishment under absolute liability.

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

Stevenson v R

A

A mens rea requirement would undermine the Act’s protective purpose

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

AHI Operations Ltd v Department of Labour

A

Absolute liability - emphasising factory owners’ responsibility to safeguard employees.

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

IRD v Thomas

A

Absolute liability needed in some cases.

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

Boyes v New Zealand Customs

A

The ruling emphasises the importance of personal responsibility in complying with importation laws and reinforces the principle that ignorance cannot excuse non-compliance

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

New Zealand Customs Service v DHL International

A

Vicarious liability when the actions of the servants fall within their usual scope of duties

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

R v Cave

A

Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Cave’s actual mistake was failing to appreciate that drink driving laws applied beyond traditional roads, which does not constitute a valid defence.

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

Keung v Police

A

The mistake was in calculating when the suspension ended, which is a factual mistake.

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

Inspector of Factories v Tarbert St Food Centre

A

Pure mistake of law.
The defendants misunderstood the legal restriction on opening the store on the specified day.

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

Ministry of Transport v Wilke

A

Mixed mistakes of law and fact are treated as mistakes of law.

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

Tipple v Police

A

OIE was not an available as a defence.

17
Q

MacRae v Buller District Council

A

Accused bears the onus of proof to establush the requirements of OIE on a balance of probabilities.
A factual foundation is necessary.

18
Q

Wilson v Auckland City Council

A

Observing others is insufficient to establish OIE.
OIE might apply in New Zealand.

19
Q

Ministry of Fisheries v NZ Wholesale Seafoods

A

Assuming the government would not take action is not an OIE

20
Q

HBT v Police

A

Mere absence of correct advice is insufficient for OIE

21
Q

Millar v MOT

A

Restatement of MacKezie
- The 3 class system is exhaustive

22
Q

Police v TVNZ Ltd

A

Violating name suppression order is now well established as a class 2 offence

23
Q

City of Levis v Tetreault and R v Jorgensen

A

Requirements of OIE
1. A mistake of law (or mix) was made
2. The accused considered the legal consequences of his or her actions
3. The accused obtained evidence from an appropriate official
4. The advice given was reasonable
5. The advice given was erroneous
6. The accused relied on the advice and thereby committed the mistake of law

Unsettled whether this is available in NZ

24
Q

Parkes v R

A

A private lawyer is not an appropriate official for OIE