Strict Liabilty Flashcards
Gammon v AG of Hong Kong
D a builder who deviated from plans in construction of building. D believed the deviation was only minor.
Held offence is SL and his belief was irrelevant. In determining ether offence is SL there is a presumption that MR is required, this presumption may be rebutted where:
Crime is regulatory. Crime is one of social concern or wording of act indicates SL. Or the offence carries a heavy penalty
Callow v Tilstone
Butcher convicted of selling unfit meat despite the fact he had meat certified as safe before the sale.
Held it mattered not how alligent he has been to ensure safety of the meat
Smedleys v breed
4 tins of peas produced by D’s contained caterpillars. D convicted of a.2 food and drugs act.
Held defence under act only available if the incident was unavoidable, that would require every person in production line to do everything possible
PSGB v storkwain
D, a pharmacist supplied drugs to a forged prescription. Offence strict liability and convicted
R v Prince
D charged with taking an unmartied girl under 16 out of possession of her farther contrary to s.53 OAPA. Beloved girl was 18
Held reasonable belief was no defence
Shah and shah
D’s owned newsagents where lottery tickets sold. One of their staff sold a lottery ticket to 13 year d boy without asking for proof of age . The act of selling ticket to someone underage is enough to make D guilty despite their effort to prevent this
Cindy v or cocq
D convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person although D claimed they were unaware of V’s state. The omission to refer to unaware of V’s state.
Omission to refer to MR was deliberate and offence SL
Sweet v parsley
D a landlady let house to tenants, while d absent police searched house and found cannabis
Held it was impractical to impose strict liability for offence of this nature as those who were responsible for letting properties could not be expected to know everything there tenants were doing
