STRICT LIABILTY - 123

Question 1

WHAT IS strict liability

Answer 1

Strict liability is liability without any need for proof of Mens Rea.

Question 2

what are the two things you can do when interpreting a silent MR statue

Answer 2

1) read the MR into the statute as a matter of principal (presumed MR)

(2) it is a case of strict liability which means no MR is required because the statute has not mentioned anything.

Question 3

Woolmington v DPP facts

Answer 3

Wollmington shot and killed his wife who he was separated from. Wollmington claimed it was an accident and was just showing her the gun (“if you do not come back to me I’ll commit suicide with this”), he claims he had no intention to kill.

Question 4

Woolmington v DPP
(UK) issue

Answer 4

Was the Trial Judge was correct in directing the Jury that the accused was required to prove his innocence?

Question 5

Woolmington v DPP
(UK)
held

Answer 5

judge wrong
The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt, following the “golden thread” principle that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Question 6

3. Problems with assuming a “regular” MR is required

Answer 6

1. Legislative intent means Parliament says what it means (they could have added MR but didn’t).
2. If the statute is silent on MR, judges shouldn’t create law.
3. Proving the defendant’s thoughts beyond reasonable doubt is hard.

Question 7

3. Problems with assuming no MR is required (absolute liability)

Answer 7

1. The default assumption is that MR is required for criminal offences, and courts “read it in” (Sweet v Parsley).
2. For serious crimes, it can seem unjust not to prove MR (not a regulatory offence).
3. it’s realistic that a person may genuinely lack MR (e.g., unknowingly cultivating cannabis – Strawbridge).

Question 8

Legal Burden

Answer 8

The Woolmington principle states that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution in criminal law, and if they fail to discharge this burden, the defendant must be found not guilty.

Question 9

Evidential burden

Answer 9

The burden of proof can shift between parties; if one party provides enough evidence, the burden shifts to the other to counter it.

Question 10

R v Strawbridge facts

Answer 10

Defendant had been given the seeds and told they were mustard seeds. But instead she was cultivating cannabis.

Question 11

R v Strawbridge issues

Answer 11

Is MR required for this silent offence?

Question 12

R v Strawbridge held

Answer 12

Halfway house solution.

The Strawbridge solution is a compromise: the prosecution doesn’t need to prove intent, but if the defendant can show they might not have known the act was illegal, and the prosecution can’t disprove that, the defendant is found not guilty.

Question 13

what are quasi criminal offences

Answer 13

violation of regulatory or administrative laws that carries legal penalties but is not classified as a traditional crime. Examples include traffic violations and environmental breaches.

Question 14

Police v Creedon facts

Answer 14

Driver approached a give way and failed to yield the right of way to another vehicle approaching.

A motor cyclist clipped front of appellants car and Creedon was charged with failing to give way at an intersection.

Question 15

Police v Creedon issue

Answer 15

is MR required for this silent offence?

Question 16

Police v Creedon held

Answer 16

Creedon not guilty. Appeal dismissed.

A driver only has a responsibility to stop when a vehicle is approaching. If a driver wasn’t at fault, they can use that as a defense, but they need to provide evidence to support it.

Question 17

Ministry of Transport v Burnetts Motors Ltd facts

Answer 17

Animal excreta and urine was spilling off the rear of a truck onto the road way. Driver (Burnett Motors) charged under

“operated a motor vehicle in such a condition as to be liable to cause annoyance to any person”.

Question 18

Ministry of Transport v Burnetts Motors Ltd issue

Answer 18

they appealed

Question 19

Ministry of Transport v Burnetts Motors Ltd held

Answer 19

Appeal allowed

Defendant relied on the precedent of Creedon to defend him for regulatory offence - held that the Creedon approach may need to be reconsidered.

Recognized possible application of the Canadian (Ste Sault Marie) three categories of criminal offences.

Question 20

what are PWO and explain

Answer 20

Public Welfare Offences

Public Welfare Offences (PWOs) are not strictly criminal; they focus on administrative law and public safety, initially treated as class 2 offenses with presumed liability unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

Question 21

Civil Aviation Department v Mackenzie facts

Answer 21

Defendant was flying a plane 20 feet over a river bed. The tail fin of the aircraft got caught in two telephone wires which suspended across the river and two men in the river bed feared for their safety.

Question 22

Civil Aviation Department v Mackenzie issue

Answer 22

Whether or not the onus placed on the defendant in strict liability offences should be an evidential burden or a legal burden?

Question 23

Civil Aviation Department v Mackenzie held

Answer 23

legal burden was allowed

The majority adopted the Canadian offense categories in New Zealand: (1) Mens Rea (MR) offenses, (2) Strict liability, and (3) Absolute liability (Mackenzie system). In strict liability cases, the accused must prove their defense, unlike in Strawbridge.