Strict Liability Cases Flashcards
R v Strawbridge
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
Civil Aviation Department v MacKenzie
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)
Turner v South Taranaki District Council
“Allow” and “permit” imply knowledge, thus suggesting actual knowledge or wilful blindness
Police v Lindsay
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.
Tell v Maritime Safety Authority
Strict liability was appropriate since the offence aimed at protecting public safety, not punishing personal fault.
Jackson v Attorney-General
Strict liability prevents potential abuses and avoids disproportionate punishment under absolute liability.
Stevenson v R
A mens rea requirement would undermine the Act’s protective purpose
AHI Operations Ltd v Department of Labour
Absolute liability - emphasising factory owners’ responsibility to safeguard employees.
IRD v Thomas
Absolute liability needed in some cases.
Boyes v New Zealand Customs
The ruling emphasises the importance of personal responsibility in complying with importation laws and reinforces the principle that ignorance cannot excuse non-compliance
New Zealand Customs Service v DHL International
Vicarious liability when the actions of the servants fall within their usual scope of duties
R v Cave
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.
Keung v Police
The mistake was in calculating when the suspension ended, which is a factual mistake.
Inspector of Factories v Tarbert St Food Centre
Pure mistake of law.
The defendants misunderstood the legal restriction on opening the store on the specified day.
Ministry of Transport v Wilke
Mixed mistakes of law and fact are treated as mistakes of law.
Tipple v Police
OIE was not an available as a defence.
MacRae v Buller District Council
Accused bears the onus of proof to establush the requirements of OIE on a balance of probabilities.
A factual foundation is necessary.
Wilson v Auckland City Council
Observing others is insufficient to establish OIE.
OIE might apply in New Zealand.
Ministry of Fisheries v NZ Wholesale Seafoods
Assuming the government would not take action is not an OIE
HBT v Police
Mere absence of correct advice is insufficient for OIE
Millar v MOT
Restatement of MacKezie
- The 3 class system is exhaustive
Police v TVNZ Ltd
Violating name suppression order is now well established as a class 2 offence
City of Levis v Tetreault and R v Jorgensen
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
Parkes v R
A private lawyer is not an appropriate official for OIE
