Strict Liabilty Info

Question 1

Gammon v AG for Hong Kong 1985

Answer 1

Relevant point:

In regulatory offences or matters of public protection, the assumption that mens rea is needed is more easily rebutted

Question 2

Justification for SL offences

Answer 2

• forces people to try to comply with regulatory requirements and makes life safer for us all

Proving fault difficult therefore saving court time and money

Minor nature of most of these offences means that little stigma is attached to them

Question 3

Criticisms of SL offences

Answer 3

• have been challenged under article 6ECHR
• no evidence to show that it improves standards
• there should be no blame if there is no fault

Question 4

Sweet v parsley 1970

Answer 4

Cannabis in flat

Presumption that MR is required unless statute states that it is one of SL

Question 5

Defences for SL offences

Answer 5

There are no defences to strict liability offence is unless provided for in the statute. Then maybe a defence if you can show the state of the art technology was used and there was no way to avoid liability

Question 6

Determine whether offence is SL

Answer 6

Check statute (sweet v parsley 1970)

Public protection (s5 sexual offences act 2003)

Whether an offence is ‘truly criminal’

Regulatory crimes