Strict Liability Q1 Flashcards
Introduction to SL
- These are a separate category of offence.
- They are offences that do not require any form of mens rea in the definition.
- As long as D has committed the act (actus reus), he will be guilty. E.g. speeding.
Where are most found?
Most are found in statute law, e.g. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
E.g. blasphemous libel (Lemon v Gay News).
What happens when SL is not clear?
If the statute makes it clear that the offence is strict liability, then courts will respect this. However, when it is not clear, and there is no mention of mens rea, courts use the guidelines set out in Gammon V AG of Hong Kong.
What is the first guideline?
Strict liability will not be used where an offence is “truly criminal” and should require mens rea to be proven.
Case for the first guideline?
Sweet v Parsley
- D’s conviction for ‘the management of a premises used for drug taking’ was overturned. This offence was considered truly criminal (so not strict liability)
and so D’s lack of mens rea meant she was not guilty.
What is the second guideline
Cases?
- If an offence is not truly criminal, but is a regulatory offence dealing with an issue of social concern then it can be a strict liability offence.
- Alphacell Ltd v Woodward
- Smedleys v Breed
- Harrow LBC v Shah
Alphacell v Woodward
Alphacell were guilty of allowing waste into a river even though it was a result of a storm and they had taken precautions. This was a strict liability offence to
limit pollution of the environment so there was no need to prove mens rea. As soon as the pollution happened, D was guilty, despite any lack of mens rea
or even awareness it had happened.
Smedleys v Breed
Smedleys produced peas and were held liable when a dead caterpillar was found in a tin of peas. Even though they had taken reasonable care to ensure
food safety, the actus reus was all that was required to find them liable.
Harrow LBC v Shah
A shopkeeper was held liable when one of his employees sold a lottery ticket to a child under 16 even though care had been taken by the shopkeeper to prevent this. As there was a need to protect children from gambling, this was a strict liability offence which meant D was guilty without any mens rea.
Reasons for needing SL
1
There is a need for strict liability offences because they make the prosecution of some Ds much easier to ensure convictions.
Reason for needing SL
2
If mens rea was needed for speeding, convictions would be very difficult to secure. They would also become very lengthy so strict liability offences save
time.
Reasons for needing SL
3
In Shah v Harrow BC it was necessary to make selling a lottery ticket to a child strict liability to regulate behaviour when it comes to issues of social concern, as in children gambling here.
Reasons for needing SL
4
Making D liable simply for his act should also ensure high standards are achieved and this is important when it comes to matters concerning food safety (Smedleys v Breed) and the pollution of the environment (Alphacell v Woodward).
Reasons for needing SL
5
They deal with crimes that are more administrative rather than true crimes which require mens rea (Sweet v Parsley).
