strict liability cases- criminal law

Question 1

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd

Answer 1

D (pharmacist) had supplied drugs on forged prescriptions. He had not acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently. The forgery was sufficiently good to deceive D. However he was convicted of supplying drugs without a genuine prescription.

Question 2

Callow v Tillstone

Answer 2

A butcher asked a vet to exam meat to see if it was fit for human consumption. The vet assured him that it was, so D offered it for sale. In fact, it was unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale

Question 3

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah

Answer 3

Ds owned a newsagents business where lottery tickets were sold. They had told their staff and reminded them frequently not to sell tickets to under 16s. One employee sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old. The defendant owners were convicted of selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16, despite their best efforts.

Question 4

Cundy v Le cocq

Answer 4

D was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. the individual had not displayed any signs of being drunk but the offence was complete on proof that a sale had taken place and that the person served was drunk, so D was guilty.

Question 5

Sweet v Parsley

Answer 5

D let a farmhouse to students. The police found cannabis at the farmhouse and D was charged with ‘being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin’. however she did not know about the cannabis. She was not guilty as the court presumed that the offence required mens rea
Lord Reid said:’there has for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did’

Question 6

Alphacell v woodward

Answer 6

Factory owner was convicted of causing polluted matter to enter a river under the rivers (prevention of pollution act) 1951. The offence was related to an underground pipe which had become disconnected due to blockage. The appellant was unaware of the pollution. As a matter of public policy, the appeal was dismissed and D was convicted.

Question 7

Sherras v De ruzen

Answer 7

The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. He had reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his armband, which was the acknowledged method of signifying off duty. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed.

Question 8

R v Blake

Answer 8

Investigation officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting.

The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a licence, contrary to s1(1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea.