Strict Liability Offenses Flashcards
*Woodrow:
D convicted of possessing adulterated tobacco even though he had no knowledge it was adulterated. D was held guilty even if chemical analysis would have been required to know it was adulterated.
Prosecution need only prove voluntary conduct of D in committing actus reus to secure conviction.
*Prince:
D convicted of taking a 16year old girl out of the possession & against the will of her father.
*Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd:
*Callow v Tillstone: D convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale even though he’d taken due care in hiring a vet to inspect and certify that a carcass was safe for human consumption. The offence was one of strict liability and required no MR.
*Controller of Customs v Bassman (Sierra Leonean case): D charged with importing bale of fabric that had not been stamped as required by legislation. D claimed to have no knowledge it was included in his consignment of other goods or that it had not been stamped as required by the legislation. D argued the offence required MR and the Magistrate Court acquitted on this basis. The controller of customs appealed because inter alia the acquittal was wrong in law and the legislation under which D was charged required no proof of knowledge by D. Weber CJ upheld conviction stating the act did not require proof of MR. The court held that to determine whether proof of MR is required ingredient of an offence, it is necessary to examine the object of the statue and see whether and how far the accused’s knowledge is of the essence of the offence and whether the operative verb of prescribed offence in a case not covered by authority is controlled by such a word as ‘knowingly’ if MR is required.
Pharmacist supplied drugs on fake prescription without knowing it was forged contrary to 58(2) the Medicines Act 1968. No proof that D acted dishonestly, improperly or negligently but he was convicted anyway since the act prohibited supplying drugs w/o genuine prescription.
For both cases the AR and voluntariness of conduct were all the Prosecution needed to prove to secure conviction.
*Callow v Tillstone: .
D convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale even though he’d taken due care in hiring a vet to inspect and certify that a carcass was safe for human consumption. The offence was one of strict liability and required no MR
*Controller of Customs v Bassman (Sierra Leonean case):
D charged with importing bale of fabric that had not been stamped as required by legislation. D claimed to have no knowledge it was included in his consignment of other goods or that it had not been stamped as required by the legislation. D argued the offence required MR and the Magistrate Court acquitted on this basis. The controller of customs appealed because inter alia the acquittal was wrong in law and the legislation under which D was charged required no proof of knowledge by D. Weber CJ upheld conviction stating the act did not require proof of MR. The court held that to determine whether proof of MR is required ingredient of an offence, it is necessary to examine the object of the statue and see whether and how far the accused’s knowledge is of the essence of the offence and whether the operative verb of prescribed offence in a case not covered by authority is controlled by such a word as ‘knowingly’ if MR is required.
Sweet v Parseley;
Lord Reid: ‘’In such cases, there has for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blame worthy in what they did. That means that whenever a Section is silent as to mens rea, there is a presumption that in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea…in the absence of a clear indication in the Act that an offence is intended to be an absolute offence, it is necessary
to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament. I say must have been because it is a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.”
