Strict Liability Cases

Question 1

R v Strawbridge

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Civil Aviation Department v MacKenzie

Answer 2

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)

Question 3

Turner v South Taranaki District Council

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Police v Lindsay

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Tell v Maritime Safety Authority

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Jackson v Attorney-General

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Stevenson v R

Answer 7

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

Question 8

AHI Operations Ltd v Department of Labour

Answer 8

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

Question 9

IRD v Thomas

Answer 9

Absolute liability needed in some cases.

Question 10

Boyes v New Zealand Customs

Answer 10

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

Question 11

New Zealand Customs Service v DHL International

Answer 11

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

Question 12

R v Cave

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Keung v Police

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Inspector of Factories v Tarbert St Food Centre

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Ministry of Transport v Wilke

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Tipple v Police

Answer 16

OIE was not an available as a defence.

Question 17

MacRae v Buller District Council

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Wilson v Auckland City Council

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Ministry of Fisheries v NZ Wholesale Seafoods

Answer 19

Assuming the government would not take action is not an OIE

Question 20

HBT v Police

Answer 20

Mere absence of correct advice is insufficient for OIE

Question 21

Millar v MOT

Answer 21

Restatement of MacKezie
- The 3 class system is exhaustive

Question 22

Police v TVNZ Ltd

Answer 22

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

Question 23

City of Levis v Tetreault and R v Jorgensen

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Parkes v R

Answer 24

A private lawyer is not an appropriate official for OIE